ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT - Mount Wellington · Wellington Park Management Trust, was...

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Wellington Park Historic Heritage Inventory & Audit Project Report - Vol 1 McConnell & Scripps (Sept 2005) - Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust

FOCUS ON THE FRINGE – LAYERED USE & MEANINGS IN A NATURAL CONTEXT

WELLINGTON PARK HISTORIC

HERITAGE INVENTORY & AUDIT PROJECT

Volume 1

McCONNELL, A. & SCRIPPS, L.

SEPTEMBER 2005

Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust, Hobart.

Anne D. McConnell Consultant - Cultural Heritage Management, Archaeology & Quaternary Geoscience; GPO Box 234, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001.

Report history - draft report (Inventory) sent out for Steering Committee review – 19/6/2005; draft report (Audit) sent out for Steering Committee review – 19/6/2005; draft report (Management Assessment & Advice) sent out for Steering Committee review – 19/7/2005: draft report (Management Assessment & Advice) sent out for stakeholder review – 10/8/2005; final report (Inventory) completed – 12/9/2005.


SUMMARY & DISCLAIMER The Project The Wellington Park Historic Heritage Audit Project implements one of the recommendations for historic heritage in the Wellington Park Management Plan. The specific project objectives are to – Provide a comprehensive listing and review of all documented historic heritage values

and sites, archaeological artefacts and cultural landscapes within the study area. Identify sites and/or areas recommended for designation as heritage sites/precincts

within the Park in accordance with the WPMP, and provide broad management recommendations for such sites/areas.

Identify further research needs for historic heritage to assist in their protection, conservation and interpretation.

Prepare nominations for listing on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) for any sites/areas that appear to meet at least one THR criterion.

Provide a basis for the conservation and management of historic heritage within the Park to adhere to the Burra Charter (ICOMOS 1999) and its associated guidelines.

The project, undertaken between late 2004 and mid 2005 as a consultancy to the Wellington Park Management Trust, was undertaken in three main stages –

1. inventory of historic heritage places, 2. historic heritage audit, 3. management assessment & provision of advice.

Because of the limited amount of existing historic heritage information, the project has had a strong initial focus on the Inventory

___________________________ The Inventory The Inventory was compiled through historical background research, from oral information and from existing heritage listings and reports. The project Inventory lists all identified heritage places, and contains information on the type, location, history, physical evidence, and sources for each place where this information is available. An electronic Project Database has also been compiled, and this contains all heritage place information sourced by the project (with hard copy material held in individual place folders).

At the start of the project the only available information about the historic heritage of Wellington Park was essentially a listing of 108 historic heritage places/place types identified in the resource inventory study for the development of the Wellington Park Management Plan (Hepper & de Gryse 1994 and WPMT 1996). The present project has identified some 407 heritage places in or near Wellington Park. Most of these places are historical in nature, with only a small number being of social significance only. There may be some duplication in the listing for a small number of places, but there is at present inadequate information to determine this.

Of the c.407 places identified, some 335 are located within, or partly within, Wellington Park. Of the other 82 places, 33 occur fully outside Wellington Park (but are included because they may have features that extend into the Park) and the location of the remaining 39 places is not known. The majority (69%) of places within (or possibly within) Wellington Park are located in the area managed by the HCC, with the GCC and PWS managed areas both containing only a relative small number of historic heritage places (15% and 16% of identified places respectively).


/continued – Overall, the bulk of the places in Wellington Park and adjacent are related to recreational activities (c.48% of places). Over 90% of the recreational type places are huts and shelters and walking tracks, with the other 10% of places being other recreational type places (viewpoints, tea houses, four ski runs and an ice skating rink). Other place types that are relatively common are timber industry places (11.5% of places), farm related places (8.0% of places), and water supply related places (3.9% of places), and natural features that have cultural value (10.1% of places). Other place types identified are reserves, parks/gardens and other plantings, monuments, scientific places (mainly weather observation stations), trig stations, graves, accommodation other than huts or farmhouses, quarries, other businesses, transport related places, convict related places, modified trees and an ice house complex, a transmission line, a snarers line, a hall, a school, an interpretative panel, a car body and refrigeration boxes.

___________________________ The Audit As part of the project audit the quality of the individual place data has been assessed as well as general heritage knowledge for Wellington Park. In relation to individual places, place reliability, location accuracy, historic background data, fabric data, condition data, significance data, quality of place record, level of place, condition, integrity, significance, quality of management policy/advice, and listing status were assessed. Only a preliminary significance assessment could be undertaken due to the poor level of individual place information.

The main finding of the project audit is the overwhelming paucity of information for individual places and the almost complete absence of information for making management decisions. The audit reveals that, of the c.367 places assessed, there are less than 20 places (ie, less than 4% of identified places) that have adequate, but by no means complete, information for management. Only one place with state level or potentially higher level significance (the Mountain Water Supply System) has adequate information for management. Places of state or higher level significance are seen as being a priority for further research.

The preliminary assessment of significance determined that 22 identified places (6%) have state level significance, 67 places (19%) have regional significance and 128 places (36%) have local significance. A small number of places assessed as having state level significance may have national and/or international level significance. Only 5 places were assessed at this stage as having no cultural significance. It should be noted that there was insufficient information to make even a preliminary significance assessment for 37% (133) of the 367 places considered, and that these places potentially have significance at a range of levels.

A relatively high percentage of places (at least 27%) were found to have a high level of integrity and it is likely that many of the unassessed places (56% of the audited places) will also have high integrity. The high integrity appears to result largely from the limited of overprinting of historical activities in Wellington Park, while loss of integrity appears to be mainly the result of tourism infrastructure development since the 1930s and some post-1967 management activities, few of which appear to have considered the historic heritage values of the Park. The audit also reveals that only 2% (7) of places are listed on, or have been nominated to, a heritage register or list (2 places are on the THR, 3 in a local government planning scheme and 3 places in THPI). Another five places are included as part of the THR and planning scheme listings.

The Audit suggests that most of the historic heritage places that are likely to occur in Wellington Park are likely to have been identified. Although this is difficult to estimate, it


/continued – is likely that at least 75-80% of potential places have been identified. The most comprehensive and reliable place identification is for the area managed by the HCC.

Other than landscape values which have not been studied at all, most historic themes have been addressed at least at a preliminary level, and the priority for future general heritage studies is to fill spatial, rather than thematic, information gaps.

The inventory and audit have also highlighted that there are a small number of areas of Wellington Park that have known or potential high sensitivity for historic heritage, and include known or potential heritage with high historical significance and potentially other cultural significance. These areas are - the Springs, the Pinnacle, the Junction Cabin area, the Montrose Trail area, Upper Merton, the Myrtle Forest-Fairy Glen fringe, the Gum Top area, the central plateau area, the Brushy Creek-Guy Fawkes Rivulet area, the area below the Springs, the Fern Tree area and the Big Bend area. Because of their extremely high potential and sensitivity and the potential for development impacts the Springs, Pinnacle and Junction Cabin areas are seen as the highest priority overall for further study. A number of these areas are potentially heritage precincts, hence are termed 'proto-precincts'.

___________________________ Management Assessment Overview The management assessment is based on the findings of the inventory and audit components of the present project, community and management agency consultation, a review of the current framework and processes for managing the historic heritage of Wellington Park, and an evaluation of relevant planning and strategic management documents for Wellington Park.

The assessment has found that there are three key issues in relation to the management of historic heritage in Wellington Park. These are – the lack of historic heritage information for management, an invisibility of the heritage within the management agencies and more broadly, and the complex context in which the Park is managed, including the multi-agency

management structure and the strong social values of Wellington Park and the high level of public interest in the management of the Park..

Another major issue for historic heritage management identified by the project was the lack of established protocols and procedures for managing data, heritage evaluation and assessment, and integrating historic heritage into broader planning management and for management generally (eg, in relation to heritage training, community involvement, the presentation and interpretation of historic heritage, and managing major information gaps). In relation to integration, a review of existing plans and strategies for Wellington Park reveals that there are deficiencies in these documents which can potentially result in negative impacts on historic heritage. These issues reflect a low level of active management of historic heritage in Wellington Park to date.

Concern over the management of a small number of sites (primarily the Springs area, Silver Falls, Fern Tree Bower, the Pipeline Track & tracks generally) over the last c.4-50 years, the need for routine maintenance of sites, the need to manage weed invasion, and the need for improved risk assessment processes were additional issues raised in the project consultation.

Resolving the 'framework' type issues is seen as the priority because unless there is an adequate framework for management it will be extremely difficult to achieve sound heritage conservation. A range of recommendations are therefore made to address the key issues and other framework issues. Thirty seven recommendations are made which cover


/continued – the following areas –

urgent & immediate (& interim) requirements, improving the historic heritage knowledge base, improving the management of historic heritage information, getting on track – towards a strategic & expert approach, other framework & capacity building, and interpretation (& presentation).

___________________________ Recommendations & Advice Key recommendations include – adopting the project historic heritage database as the site & precinct listing for

management; urgent comprehensive historic heritage studies of the Springs and Pinnacle areas, and a

landscape values assessment for the whole of Wellington Park; the WPMT having the coordinating and central role in historic heritage management; the use of the Project Proposal Form process to assess all intervention at sites or

precincts; assessment of all proposed new works in all areas using in-house heritage expertise

&/or an Historic Heritage Working Group; appropriate heritage awareness training for staff, contractors and volunteers working on

heritage places or other aspects of heritage management; and the development of a Historic Heritage Management Strategy;

___________________________ Acknowledgement & Disclaimer Sources for all information on the historic places have been acknowledged. Individual views on management provided to the consultants have however been kept confidential to protect participants, unless inclusion in the project report has been specifically requested or endorsed by the originator. The ownership of, and intellectual property rights of, individuals who have contributed personal knowledge to the project is acknowledged.

This report attempts to accurately reflect the views that have been expressed to the project consultants. The views contained in this report should be regarded as relevant to the present project, but not as being necessarily fixed or applicable in the long term.

The consultants have taken all reasonable measures to identify all available information on the historical heritage of Wellington Park and its management and other relevant background information within the scope of the project requirements, and to provide sound advice with respect to the management of the historical heritage of Wellington Park. However there may be sources of information which were not identified, management arrangements may change, and management issues may arise which were not foreshadowed during this study. The consultants therefore take no liability in the event that additional heritage or relevant background information in relation to the project is identified, or where new management arrangements or issues arise. The consultant also takes no responsibility for any shortcomings of the project report that derive from subsequent stakeholder input or changes of view in relation to the use and management of the historical heritage of Wellington Park.

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Numerous people have assisted with the Wellington Park Historic Heritage Audit Project and we are extremely grateful for this help. We particularly extend our thanks to -

the staff of the Archives Office of Tasmania, the Tasmaniana and Crowther Collection (State Library of Tasmania) and the Hobart City Council Library;

those many members of the community, community associations and managing agencies who provided information to the project relating to heritage places and their management;

the New Norfolk Historical Society, Hobart Walking Club and Fern Tree Community Association for their interest in the project;

Fred Lakin, Blane Fitzgerald, Kevin Kiernan and Mike Bidwell for introducing the project team to select places in the field;

Alison Davies, Jerry de Gryse, Kathy Evans, Jill Fitzgerald, Peter Franklin, Grant Hall, Max Knott, Jo Lyngcoln and Lara Vandenberg for providing additional information and advice; and

the project steering committee (Michael Easton, Brendan Lennard, Rob Mather, Angie McGowan & Sarah Waight) for their guidance and assistance, on many levels, throughout the project.

Through their passion and knowledge of 'The Mountain' and Wellington Range, those people who have contributed to the project have helped us better understand the history and historic heritage of Wellington Park and to build on earlier studies to inventory and audit the historic heritage of Wellington Park. Undertaking the project has been an additional pleasure for us because Wellington Park is also part of our own local environment and we are privileged to have been able to participate in this opportunity to improve the management of the Park.

Anne McConnell & Lindy Scripps

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Wellington Park Historic Heritage Inventory & Audit Project Report - Vol 1 McConnell & Scripps (Sept 2005) - Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust

ii

CONTENTS page no SUMMARY & DISCLAIMER

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i

INTRODUCTION

PART 1 INVENTORY 1 1.1 Inventory Approach 7

1.1.1 Introduction 7 1.1.2 Inventory Method 8

1.2 Inventory Findings 12 1.2.1 Overview 12 1.2.2 Review by Management Area 14 1.2.3 Interpretation of the Inventory 21

PART 2 AUDIT 2.1 Audit Approach 23

2.1.1 Introduction 23 2.1.2 Audit Method 23

2.2 Audit Findings 25 2.2.1 Heritage Place Data 25 2.2.2 Heritage General 29

PART 3 HERITAGE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS 3.1 Management Analysis Approach 35

3.2 Key Management Issues 38

3.3 Other Issues & Opportunities 43 3.3.1 Heritage Information Issues 43 3.3.2 Framework Issues for Management 48 3.3.3 Issues & Opportunities for Interpretation & 58

Presentation 3.3.4 Other Management Issues & Opportunities 62 3.3.5 Urgent & Immediate Management Issues 64

PART 4 MANAGEMENT ADVICE 4.1 Recommendations & Advice 67

4.2 Priority for Recommendation Implementation 85

SOURCES 89


iii

Appendices Appendix 1 Project Brief Tasks and Task Requirements. Appendix 2 Making Decisions about Heritage Place Management -

Overview of Framework Appendix 3 Consultation Summary

Figures, tables, etc, Figure 1 Wellington Park & environs. 4 Figure 2 Areas in Wellington Park that have historic heritage 31

sensitivity, but which are poorly understood. Table 1 Project approach showing the project stages, key 3

tasks and task components. Table 2 Historic heritage place types by area of management 13

responsibility. Table 3 Audit Analysis – Summary of Data from the Individual 30

Place Audit ________________________________________________________________________ VOLUME 2 Section 1 Heritage Site & Precinct Inventory 2005 Section 2 Heritage Place Audit 2005

Section 3 Review of Historic Heritage Coverage in Planning and Strategic Documents

________________________________________________________________________


iv

ABBREVIATIONS

AHC Australian Heritage Commission AOT Archives Office of Tasmania CHPS City of Hobart Planning Scheme CMP Conservation Management Plan DPIWE Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment DVC Derwent Valley Council EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPBC Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation DTPHA Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage & the Arts FTCA Fern Tree Community Association GCC Glenorchy City Council HCC Hobart City Council HS Heritage Schedule HT Heritage Tasmania (DTPHA) HW Hobart Water HWC Hobart Walking Club KC Kingborough Council km kilometre LUPAA Land Use & Planning Approvals Act MWSHWG Mountain Water Supply Heritage Working Group MWSS Mountain Water Supply System PLT Pipeline Track PPF Project Proposal Form PS Planning Scheme PWS Parks & Wildlife Service (DTPHA) PMPS Resource Management & Planning System RNE Register of the National Estate SDP Site Development Plan TCT Tasmanian Conservation Trust THC Tasmanian Heritage Council THPI Tasmanian Historical Places Inventory THR Tasmanian Heritage Register


Introduction


1

Background to the Project

Wellington Park contains important natural and cultural values and is important as a water, tourism, recreational and other cultural resource area for Greater Hobart and other parts of south eastern Tasmania. It is a highly popular local and other visitor (primarily day use) destination. At over 18,250 ha, the Park covers the bulk of the Wellington Range and is the largest single protected area in Tasmania outside of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. The Park occupies a unique position as 1. an essentially natural, but accessible, buffer between the occupied lower Derwent and Huon Valleys and the rugged, largely unoccupied area of South West Tasmania; and 2. given its situation on the fringe of urban Hobart, the location of Tasmania's longest term European settlement (refer Figure 1).

As well as having an Aboriginal history, the Park has had extensive use and exploitation from the first non-Aboriginal interest in the late 1700s (including George Bass' ascent of Mt Wellington in 1798) until the present because it is such a dominant backdrop to Hobart and because of its proximity to a major urban area. This has resulted in a range of historic heritage places and objects in, and strong historical connections to, Wellington Park. The Park also has immense visual and aesthetic importance within the broader community. Wellington Park therefore has considerable historic heritage values.

The Values, Use and Management Inventory, prepared as a background to the Wellington Park Management Plan (WPMP) by Network 208 in the early 1990s (de Gryse & Hepper 1994), included a review of the known historic heritage and archaeological artefacts in the Park. It listed some 75 places that were identified largely from historical background research and brief inspection of a few of the places.1 The limited information about the historic heritage of Wellington Park was noted in the 1994 Inventory and the study consequently also identified the need for further historic heritage studies.

This issue is picked up in the WPMP (1997, p97) which notes that "An important issue is the almost complete lack of knowledge and/or systematic research on the relative significance of the historic sites and features of the Park, including its cultural landscapes". It also comments that "no rigorous assessment has been done to define the visual characteristics and aesthetic values of the Park, [but] these values are immensely important to people, particularly when linked with natural scenery" (WPMP 1997, p97).

To address this issue, the WPMP recommended further studies to – better understand the full value and cultural significance of the known features, identify more fully the range of historic heritage values of Wellington Park identify sites and/or precincts of historic heritage, and identify the management needs for such sites/precincts,

and, as an initial step, recommends undertaking a Historic Heritage Audit of the Park.

The present project has been undertaken to evaluate the present knowledge and management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park and to achieve the objectives of the above recommendations to the extent possible.

1 This was updated in the 1996 Values, Use & Management Inventory (WPMT 1996) to a list of 108 places, with the added information being derived from the research by Macfie (c.1994).


2

Project Outline

The project study area includes the entire area of Wellington Park and its immediate environs (refer Figure 1). The study area has been extended outside the Park where historic, cultural or aesthetic relationships have been identified or are considered probable by the project.

The specific objectives of the present project are to – Provide a comprehensive listing and review of all documented historic heritage values and sites,

archaeological artefacts and cultural landscapes within the study area.2 Identify sites and/or areas recommended for designation as heritage sites/precincts within the Park in

accordance with the WPMP, and provide broad management recommendations for such sites/areas. Identify further research needs for historic heritage to assist in their protection, conservation and

interpretation. Prepare nominations for listing on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) for any sites/areas that

appear to meet at least one THR criterion. Provide a basis for the conservation and management of historic heritage within the Park (to adhere

to the Burra Charter (ICOMOS 1999) and its associated guidelines).

The Project Brief required the project be carried out as a staged project. It specified tasks and provided advice on how these tasks were to be carried out (refer Appendix 1).

The project brief also specified that the project be essentially a desktop study, but for consultation to be undertaken with key management and community stakeholder groups. An additional specified task was for the project to prepare datasheets for listing of appropriate sites on the THR. The Project Brief also specifies that project should utilise the definition of historic cultural heritage in the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 and the definition of cultural significance in the Burra Charter, and that the terms heritage precinct and heritage site are taken to be in the context of that used in the WPMP. As required by the WPMP and the Project Brief, the project has been carried out in keeping with the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (1999) guidelines.

The project has been undertaken as a consultancy to the Wellington Park Management Trust by Anne McConnell (Principal) and Lindy Scripps. Lindy is an historian with extensive knowledge of the history of the Hobart region, including Mt Wellington and adjacent areas, and Anne is a cultural heritage practitioner with expertise in the identification, assessment and management of historic heritage of non-urban areas in Tasmania. The project was undertaken over a period of ten months (Oct 2004 to August 2005).

Project Approach

The approach taken has been strongly influenced by the limited amount of historic heritage knowledge at the start of the project.3 The approach therefore was to focus initially on heritage identification to develop as comprehensive an inventory as possible within the constraints of the project, and then audit this larger body of heritage knowledge. The management assessment was carried out as the last stage and has taken into account the inventory and audit findings as well as stakeholder comment and a review of current management provisions. The biases in the heritage information base at the start of the project (refer Section 1.1) also influenced the project approach with respect to focus, content and the sequencing of sub-tasks.

2 The project does not include Aboriginal heritage and associations with the Park, but any identified Aboriginal heritage associations with known historic heritage have been noted. 3 The knowledge 'gaps' have also influenced the ability of this essentially desktop audit to provide a comprehensive and reliable understanding of heritage management issues and opportunities.


3

The project structure and the tasks undertaken for the three main phases (inventory, audit and management assessment) are outlined in Table 1, below. The methodology for the different phases is detailed in the relevant section of this report.

Inventory Historical Research - a desktop review of relevant secondary sources, and historic maps, plans, aerial photographs and other key primary sources to 1) identify potential historic heritage and 2) identify the historical value of identified heritage. Heritage Review – a desktop review of relevant heritage studies, registers and other listings to obtain information on the location, nature, condition and values of identified heritage places, and to review existing management advice. Targeted Stakeholder & Community Consultation - to add to the knowledge of the heritage resource of Wellington Park, to assist in the significance assessment of the known heritage, and to help identify management issues, opportunities and requirements for the heritage. Compilation of heritage information database (and summary as Inventory) & analysis.

Stag

e 1

Audit (& Values Assessment)

Historical Research – see Inventory, above. Heritage Review – see Inventory, above. Assessment of Heritage Information Quality & Heritage Values (using the heritage information database as the basis for this).

Stag

e 2

Management Assessment

Targeted Stakeholder & Community Consultation – see Inventory, above, and a Heritage Management Review Meeting with key land management agency staff. Heritage Review – see Inventory, above. Management & Planning Framework Review – a review of relevant management plans, site development plans, conservation management plans, and strategic planning documents (eg, Fire Management Strategy, Drinking Water Catchment Management Strategy).

Assessment & Provision of Management Advice (using the information derived from the above).

Management Advice for Upper Merton (specific project requirement) –specific management advice provided for this area based on a one day inspection, historical research and a literature review (preliminary advice was provided as part of Stage 1 (McConnell & Scripps 2004)).

Table 1 Project approach showing the project stages, key tasks and task components.

The consultation undertaken was, as required in the Project Brief, 'targeted consultation'. The project however attempted to consult as broadly as possible within this constraint. The consultation undertaken included –

Consultation with land management agencies – in person consultation to explore management issues and opportunities, and to assist identify places and collect background place information.

Consultation with relevant statutory and heritage authorities – by letter to advise of the project and ask for place information and comment on management issues and opportunities.

Consultation with relevant municipalities – by letter to advise of the project and ask for comment on management issues and opportunities and place information.

Consultation with community interest groups – by letter to relevant community, historical, recreational and land care type groups to advise about the project and to ask for feedback to


4

Figure 1 Wellington Park & Environs. [The colour map is taken from Tasmap (1986) and the map of the Park has been provided to the project by the WPMT].

WELLINGTON PARK

ON-GROUND MANAGEMENT

RESPONSIBILITIES

WELLINGTON PARK


5

identify places and their values (especially landscape, aesthetic and social values) and management issues and opportunities.

Consultation with key individuals – by oral interview to utilise the depth of knowledge of the history and historic heritage of Wellington Park held by a number of individuals in the community (included a review of relevant oral history tapes recorded by Stoddart (2001).

The consultation methodology and a summary of responses from the consultation are provided in Appendix 1, Part 3. The project has concerned itself only with historic heritage (ie, non-Aboriginal heritage).4 Historic heritage in the context of this project is considered to include objects, archaeological deposits and sites, buildings and other structures, complexes of these, natural features and landscapes which have, or potentially have, historical, scientific, aesthetic, social or spiritual value for past present or future generations. As cultural significance may be 'embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, related places and related objects' (Australia ICOMOS 1999, 2) the heritage identified can include tangible heritage (ie, physical features and their setting, or areas with physical heritage) or intangible heritage (ie, places with no physical heritage, but which are important for their historical meanings and associations). In defining heritage no particular cut off date has been used. Documentary and other sources of information about Wellington Park have not been considered as part of the historic heritage.

The draft report was prepared in two stages - Parts 1 (Inventory) & 2 (Audit) initially, and then Part 3 (Management). A draft of each report was provided to the Steering Committee for comment. The revised draft was provided to key stakeholders and organisations and individuals who have expressed an interest in commenting on the draft report (eg, the Hobart Walking Club, the New Norfolk Historical Society and the Fern Tree Community Association). A final report (and the Project Database) was then completed and provided to the Wellington Park Management Trust taking into account all comment received.

Project Reporting

The full project results are reported in this project report. The report is in two parts – Volume 1 – project methodology and discussion of results (including relevant appendices); and Volume 2 – the project Site & Precinct Inventory, Heritage Place Audit and tabulated results of the

review of historic heritage coverage in plans and strategies for Wellington Park.

4 If historic heritage places are identified that are also known to have Aboriginal heritage values, then this information would be included.


6


Part 1

INVENTORY


7

1.1 INVENTORY APPROACH

1.1.1 Introduction

At the start of the project the available information about the historic heritage of Wellington Park amounted to a listing of 108 historic heritage places (or place types) identified in the 1996 Resource Inventory (WPMT 1996). These places were identified through research undertaken for the development of the Wellington Park Management Plan (Hepper & de Gryse 1994, and Macfie c.1994). The relatively small number of places identified, compared to what might be expected from an area with a long term history and high population centres nearby, and the paucity of data for the identified places5 reflect the limited heritage research carried out to date.6

Consequently the inventory was compiled as the first stage of the current project and a strong emphasis was put on the inventory work to provide a more comprehensive picture of the historic heritage of Wellington Park. Within the Inventory stage the background research has focussed on historical research of secondary sources and key primary sources, and community knowledge obtained through targeted consultation as these were seen as providing the greatest knowledge in the limited tine available.

The project inventory is contained in Volume 2 of this report. It is essentially a listing of all historical places (sites and precincts) identified from the historical sources researched as part of this project; oral and other community information obtained through project consultation; and existing registers, lists, schedules and heritage reports. It does not generally contain places of no historic heritage significance. The inventory is intended to be a printable listing and reference to reflect the knowledge base as at 2005 (ie, at the end of the project) and to this end the amount of information in the inventory has been limited. It is separated into a 'site' listing and a 'precinct' listing, as per the terminology of the WPMP.7

The project working inventory which contains all information that was accessible to the project for each place has more information on the history and physical condition of places and includes condition information and existing significance evaluations where known (ie, all the sourced information, or references to it). This document is in essence a database and is referred to in this report as the 'Project Database'. It is some 180 pages long in its current format and is therefore not considered suitable for use as the project inventory which is about half this length. The Project Database however should be the listing used for management.

The range of products from the inventory phase of the Wellington Park Historic Heritage Audit Project comprise –

the Inventory (refer Volume 2), the Project Database (electronic – WORD format) which will be provided to the Wellington Park

Management Trust to be used as the basis for a management database,

5 This listing contained no information for 22 places, and the place data provided for the other 86 places was limited to grid references and a very brief description (mostly second hand) for c.50% of places and brief historical notes (with limited referencing) for c.75% of places). 6 Historic heritage research to date can be summarised as–

• very limited desktop assessment (historic or heritage) for the Park except for the Mountain Park and MWSS; • no field survey for historic heritage in the Park except in the Mountain Park and for the MWSS; • little field inspection or documentation of most identified sites; • little opportunity for the community to identify heritage places and areas; and • no professional assessment of the social values of identified heritage (which requires community

consultation/input). 7 At this stage no precincts have been identified.


8

THPI registration of all confidently identified places which have accurate location information; a collection of place files (manila folders with information ) for each place with existing available

information (including place reports, articles, photos, drawings & maps) to be given to the Wellington Park Management Trust, and

a set of copies of privately held collections (mainly photographic collections) used by the project which have been provided to the Wellington Park Management Trust for their reference collection.

The methods used in compiling the inventory are outlined in the next Section.

1.1.2 Inventory Method

Information Collection

The inventory (and Project Database) was compiled through the following research:

Historical Research A review of relevant secondary sources, and historic maps, plans, aerial photographs and other key primary sources was undertaken in order to identify potential historic heritage in the Park and identify the historical value of this heritage. Key secondary sources used include the history of Mount Wellington (de Quincey 1987), the history of Glenorchy 1804-1966 (Alexander 1986), the Pipeline Track historical study (Scripps 1993a), Macfie's (c.1994) Wellington Park heritage values study, a history of the Collinsvale area (Appeldorf 1986) and the Hobart Walking Club periodical, the Tasmanian Tramp.

A draft inventory was drawn up and items requiring further information were noted. Additional research was carried out into the records of bodies with a presence or interest in the study area, principally the records of the local councils, the Hobart Walking Club, the Forestry Commission, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, the Agricultural Bank (for information about Soldier Settlement), and the Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment. The focus of this additional research included the mountain huts, the development of the track network, sawmills, and the settlement of Merton.

Experience gained in the course of this project suggests that much of the activity that has taken place in the study area has been poorly recorded and, in many cases, not officially documented. There is scope for further oral history that is specific and site-based, perhaps incorporating site visits to eliminate the confusion sometimes created by the use of different names for the same site and by vague locations. Aerial photographs were used principally in relation to the additional research on Merton, but further use could be made of this resource and other photographic material in the collections of the Archives Office of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. There is scope for more research into local government records, but will be inefficient unless for specific places or activities.8 The same applies to the primary government records relating to convicts.

Heritage Desktop Review The review of heritage data mainly comprised a review of existing heritage studies likely to contain information on the heritage of Wellington Park. The key reports used were Hepper & de Gryse (1994), Macfie (c.1994), Waight (1995) and McConnell (2003). Additional heritage reports reviewed included area studies such as Scripps' (1993b) New Town Rivulet study, Terry's (1994 & 2004) Glenorchy heritage studies, McConnell et al's (1998) Ridgeway Park Study and Hingston et al's (2001) Upper Merton study; and place specific studies such as those for the Mountain Water

8 Little work was done with respect to the local government records other than for the Hobart City Council and Glenorchy City Council as this was seen as being akin to looking for a needle in a haystack. Further research will only be useful if it can be focussed (for example on specific places, general council minutes and works minutes).


9

Supply System (Hartzell 1993) and heritage places at the Springs (Terry 2001, Gulson 2003). The Wellington Park Mountain Huts Inventory (Abrahams 2001), Evans' (1996) convict study and Crawford & Ryan's (1988) book on the water supply systems for Hobart were also useful sources. More generalist or bushwalking books on Mt Wellington and websites with information on historical aspects of Mt Wellington were also reviewed. Useful sources of these types included Leaman (2001), Buckman (2000) and J. & M. Grist's website with information on the present day condition of many of the historic huts. The relevant management plans for Wellington Park were also reviewed.

The other sources used in the heritage review were the range of relevant registers and other similar listings. These included the National Heritage List (NHL), the Register of the National Estate (RNE), the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR), the Tasmanian Historical Places Inventory (THPI); and the Heritage Schedules of the relevant Councils, and information compiled by the Mount Wellington Working Group (HCC 1991).

Oral Information Oral information relating to the historical heritage of Wellington Park came from three main source types –

The oral histories recorded by Emily Stoddart (2001): Thirteen of the twenty interviews were selected as having potential to have place related information about Wellington Park. These were listened to and place related information extracted.

Interviews (this project) with individuals identified as having a depth of knowledge regarding the history and/or historic heritage of Wellington Park: Eighteen individuals were interviewed. These people were identified largely through consultation and included people with a long term recreational or family association, who had lived on the edge of Wellington Park over long period or who had (or currently) worked within Wellington Park.

Through the responses from the broader community consultation (ie, via letters and questionnaires): The letters were sent to a large number of relevant community, historical and Landcare/Bushcare groups and associations (refer Appendix 3). Groups who were sent questionnaires were asked to distribute these to interested members. In the Glenorchy area the questionnaire was also mailed by the Council to all individuals in the precinct groups adjacent to Wellington Park (ie, Collinsvale-Glenlusk, Glenorchy, Rosella-Montrose and Tumbling Waters groups – c.190 individuals)9. In all only about 10 responses (written and oral) with place information or leading to place information were received through this approach.

The full range of oral sources has not been exhausted. Although the project consulted with people widely regarded as being particularly knowledge about the historic heritage of Wellington Park, these people may, in a number of cases, be able to provide more detailed information about particular places. It is also apparent that there are a large number of individuals living around Wellington Park (and probably elsewhere) that have unique information to contribute in relation to small numbers of places. The project did not have the scope to solicit this level of information, but it is considered an important source of information that should be included in the future given the limited documentary evidence for most of the historic heritage of Wellington Park.

Field Survey & Inspection The project did not allow for field survey and inspection. The exception was for a field inspection of known heritage in the Upper Merton area to assist in formulating urgently needed management advice for the area. The project has however benefited from the consultants' personal knowledge of places in Wellington Park and from one consultant (AM) spending a day on the Hobart face of Mt Wellington being shown a number of historic huts sites and tracks by knowledgeable members of the Hobart Walking Club. 9 This approach resulted in only a very limited response, thought to reflect the fact that many people have a limited knowledge and/or attachment that they did not feel worth reporting, did not have enough motivation to provide a response in writing, or had so much information it was too difficult for them to respond.


10

Inventory Design

The range of above sources was used to identify places for inclusion in the inventory (and Database). All information obtained from these sources was used if related to places considered to be of historical and/or social significance and within or adjacent Wellington Park.

Because of the different types of sources used and different interests of the various sources, the data for each place is very variable, and for some places is confusing or conflicting (and not able to be resolved within the scope of the current project). In general, all information has been included as the project was not in a position to be able to assess the accuracy of the information being provided. Where a place has been identified under different names and, where it is clearly the same place, the data has been integrated under one place name (the most common, well known historical or latest) with the other place names also listed. Where a place has more than one name and these names are very common, then all names have been listed as separate entries, but only one has the place information. In cases where a listed place is thought to be another listed place, this is noted in the place information.

The project has also used the following protocol in terms of deciding what a 'place' is. The protocol follows that generally used for cultural heritage. In general, discrete places (eg, a natural feature or hut) or discrete locations where an historical activity occurred (eg, Wiggins slate quarries or a sawmill) are treated as individual places. However, where a number of individual features or places are closely connected historically and physically, they have been listed as a single place (eg, the Ice Houses complex and the Springs Hotel complex). In a small number of cases what might be regarded as a single place has been listed as two or more places where there is a lack of confidence that the places share a common history, although they may be physically connected (eg, Collins Cap Track North and Collins Cap Track South). In general, elements or features within a listed place are not listed separately (to keep duplication of listings to a minimum). In general, the 'places' identified can be considered 'sites' as per the WPMP. As no precincts have been recognised to date, the inventory does not include precincts (although the Mountain Water Supply System, a single listing in the inventory as a 'site complex', could be regarded as one).10

The inventory is designed to contain all descriptive information for identified historic heritage places. It does not contain any assessment information such as significance, condition or data quality.11 The categories of information used in the inventory are (in order) –

place name place type location of place history of place known physical evidence, and sources known to contain information about the place.

In addition, the initial column in the Inventory indicates what register, schedule or other formal listing the place is on (and the list reference number where this applies) and which area of management the place is in or if it is outside Wellington Park. Colour coding in the initial column has also been used to indicate –

known location outside Wellington Park, places that are unlikely to be legitimate,

10 A more detailed discussion of the definition of 'site', 'site complex' and 'precinct' is given in Section 3.3.1. 11 Assessment information is included in the Audit (refer Section 2, Volume 2) and, where available, in the Project Database.


11

places that are natural features, places that are natural features with human modification, duplicate listings, and places that should be treated as confidential.


12

1.2 INVENTORY FINDINGS

1.2.1 Overview

The Project Inventory contains some 407 heritage places12, most of which are historical in nature, with only a small number being of social significance only (refer place type discussion below). Two of the listed places are considered highly likely to be another listed place, and there are a small number of other places that also may be other listed places, but there is at present inadequate information to determine this.

Of the c.407 places identified, some 335 are located within, or partly within, Wellington Park. Thirty three of the 407 places occur fully outside Wellington Park, but are included because they are close to the park and, in a number of cases, may have features (eg, logging tracks) that extend into the Park. The location of the remaining 39 places is not known, and they may be within or outside the Park.

The majority of places within (or possibly within) Wellington Park are located in the area managed by the HCC, with the GCC and PWS managed areas both containing only a relative small number of historic heritage places. The HCC managed area has c.69% of identified places (236 known & 20 possible places), the GCC managed area has c.15% (53 known & 4 possible places) and the PWS managed area has c.16% (46 known and 15 possible places. These places include 6 places which occur over two management areas. One of these places (the Mountain Water Supply System) also occurs in the Kingborough municipality.

The locations of those places identified which have reasonably accurately known location is shown on the accompanying maps (Map 1 & 2).

Table 2 shows a break down of places by management responsibility area and place type. Overall in Wellington Park and adjacent the bulk of the places (c.48% or c.210 places) are related to recreational activities. The majority of these places are huts and shelters (c.102) and walking tracks (c.92), with other recreational type places including viewpoints, tea houses, four ski runs and an ice skating rink. The majority of these recreational type places (c.170 places) are located in the area managed by the HCC, and represent some 66% of historic heritage places identified within the HCC managed land in the Park.

The place types that are relatively common in Wellington Park and adjacent are timber industry places (sawmills, sawpits, harvesting areas, logging tracks, log landings and log haulers) (11.5% of places), farm related places (farms and clearings) (8.0% of places), and water supply related places (water supply systems, waterholes, springs) (3.9% of places), and natural features that have social value (ie, are visually/aesthetically important or important walking destinations) (10.1% of places). Most of the timber industry places are concentrated in the area managed by the PWS, while most of the farming related places are concentrated in the GCC managed area, and most of the identified natural features occur in the HCC managed area. The water supply features are spread throughout the Park but occur mainly on the eastern side of the Park.

Other place types identified in or adjacent to the Park include reserves, parks/gardens and other plantings (c.11 places), monuments (c.6 places), scientific places (mainly weather observation

12 The Project Database has an additional c.20 places listed. These are places located well away from Wellington Park, but they are included as they have been referred to elsewhere as being on Mt Wellington or potentially within Wellington Park. These additional sites are mainly historic huts or sawmills (listed in Macfie c.1994).


13

Place Type ∗

Hobart City

Council

Glenorchy City

Council

Parks & Wildlife Service

Outside Δ Total Percentage of Total

Natural Feature (of interest)

33 3 7 1 44 10.1%

Viewpoint (Lookout) 6 - - - 6 1.4%Monument 6 - - - 6 1.4%

Park (& Reserve/Gardens) 4 - 2 - 6 1.4%Other Plantings 2 3 - - 5 1.1%Modified Tree 1 - - 1 2 0.5%

Clearing 1 - 1 1 3 0.7%Farm 1 22 4 5 32 7.8%

Dwelling 3 1 1 3 8 1.8%Hut (& Shelter) 83 8 6 5 102 23.4%

Campsite 6 1 2 - 9 2.1%Other Accommodation 3 - - 1 4 0.9%

Tea Houses - 1 - 4 5 1.1%Recreational (ice/snow) 5 - - - 5 1.1%

Track 76 4 9 3 92 21.1%Road 2 1 - - 3 0.7%

Bridge 2 - - - 2 0.5%Timber Harvesting Area 1 - 6 1 8 1.8%

Sawmill 3 2 19 5 29 6.6%Sawpit 2 - - - 2 0.5%

Logging Track 2 1 3 - 6 1.4%Other Timber Industry 2 - 2 1 5 1.1%

Quarry 5 1 - - 6 1.4%Trapping - - 1 - 1 0.2%

Other Industry/Business 3 - - 1 4 0.9%Water Supply 7 7 2 1 17 3.9%

Electricity Supply - 1 - - 1 0.2%Scientific Station 5 - - - 5 1.1%

Survey (trig point) 2 1 - - 3 0.7%Graves 1 1 - - 2 0.5%

Convict 2 - - - 2 0.5%

Other #

1 2 1 2 6 1.4%

Unknown 1 3 - - 5 1.1%

Table 2 Historic heritage place types in Wellington Park by area of management responsibility. [The above table summarises site types from the Inventory –Volume 2, Section 1].

∗ A number of cairns (boundary markers and route markers) have been identified as occurring historically, but not individually, so have not been able to be included in the above table. Δ This includes only those places known to be outside Wellington Park. Places which may be in the Park or outside have been treated as being within the nearest management responsibility area. # Other place types include an interpretative panel, a car body, refrigeration boxes, a hall and a school.


14

stations) (5 places), graves (2 places), accommodation other than huts or farmhouses (campsites, dwellings & a hotel) (c.21 places), quarries (6 places), other businesses (3 places), transport related places (roads & bridges) (5 places), survey/trig stations (3 places), convict related places (2 places), modified trees (2 places) and an ice house complex, a transmission line, a snarers line, a hall, a school, an interpretative panel, a car body and refrigeration boxes. The majority of these places are also in the area managed by the HCC.

A more detailed discussion of the types of places found in each management area is given below to provide some historical and chronological context for the identified places. More detailed historical contextual information is provided in de Quincey (1986), Scripps (1993a&b) and Macfie (c.1994). How well the inventory reflects the actual historical heritage in Wellington Park is discussed in Section 1.2.3, and in Part 3 (Audit).

1.2.2 Review by Management Area

Hobart City Council Land

The area of Wellington Park managed by the HCC has been historically the most intensively used part of the Wellington Range. This is reflected in the number and range of historic heritage places identified through the present project. It is clear from the history and inventory that this part of the mountain has been the focus for recreation and the provision of recreational and tourist services; for select resource utilisation such as ice production, quarrying, timber harvesting and water harvesting; and for scientific endeavour; and is (& has been) the natural backdrop for Hobart, with many natural features that have held a strong scenic attraction for local residents and visitors.

The use of this part of the mountain appears to have begun soon after settlement. Amongst the earliest places identified in Wellington Park date from the first half of the 19th Century. These include the New Town Way, the first route to the Mt Wellington summit which was used from 1798. The first built structures include the 1831 Diversion, Sprent's Mt Wellington mid-1830s trigonometrical station, and Wiggins slate quarry and possibly the sawpits which were operating in the Junction Cabin area in the early 1830s. There was also a convict timber-getting station on the slopes of Mt Wellington in the late 1810s, but it is not known where this was. All these places would also have had associated access tracks such as the New Town Track. The next oldest identified historic heritage places in the Park are the two shelters for visitors built in c.1843 at the request of Lady Jane Franklin, one at the Pinnacle and one at the Springs. One, possibly two other huts/dwellings are known this in part of the mountain in the late 1840s – the Jacksons Bend Hut (on the Fingerpost Track) established by 1846, and a possible hut under the Organ Pipes established by 1847. In the mid-1840s Wellington Falls were discovered by the non-Aboriginal inhabitants of the Hobart area and the Wellington Falls Track was built soon after.

The range of uses of the mountain increased in the second half of the 19th Century. Identified places from this period include the establishment of the Woods family at the Springs and the development of the Ice Houses in c.1849/50, the development of a track to the Pinnacle via the Ice House Track and South Wellington Track, the development of the Mountain Water Supply System in the 1860s (which by the early 1900s had extended around the south face of the Mountain to North West Bay River) and more logging, including sawpits above Fingerpost. It is also likely that Pillingers Drive (ie, the Pinnacle Road to the Springs) was built during this period, probably in the 1850s-1860s as convict labour was reputedly used on the construction of the road. A convict station is believed to lie within the Park (below the Springs). During this period recreation on the mountain appears to have been focussed on major scenic attractions such as the Pinnacle, the Springs, Wellington Falls and the


15

Fern Tree Bower, with tracks such as the Wellington Falls Track, Milles Track, the Bower Track, the then Pinnacle Track (the present Ice House Track and Fingerpost Track) and New Fingerpost Track (now Radfords Track), the New Town Track, and possibly the Fern Glade Track, being used to access these places. The construction of 1831 Diversion, the Mountain Water Supply System, the Huon Road and Pillingers Drive all had associated quarries, some of which are in the Park or nearby.

From the c.1890s to the 1920s there appears to have been a huge increase in recreational use of the mountain and this is reflected in the large percentage of recreational type places in Wellington Park that date to this period, primarily tracks and huts. This period saw regular weekend use of the Hobart face of the Mountain and consequent development of numerous tracks to access different parts of the mountain from points such as Fern Tree, Strickland Avenue, Old Farm Road, Mt Stuart and New Town. This created a network of tracks between Browns River and Brushy Creek. A number of influences also combined to result in over 30 known rustic style huts being built in the area, mainly around the New Town Track and the Myrtle Gully Track. These huts were mainly built of local timber. The earliest of these were simple, small, gable roofed huts with bark or timber roofing and walls, but from the late 1890s onwards the huts were notable for their size and rustic style decoration and their associated rustic enclosures, paths, bridges and summerhouses. Most of these huts disappeared by the late 1920s/early 1930s, mainly due to fires. An associated development at this time was the planting of a small arboretum below the Springs.

During this period, the earlier main scenic locations remained popular, and newly discovered waterfalls and cascades also became popular destinations for day walks. The Springs became a major focus of visitor interest given that it was a relatively rare, level, protected location and a scenic viewpoint and by this time had access by horse and trap. Around the turn of the century activities at the Springs included site seeing picnics, socialising by walkers, music, dancing, and flower picking. This interest culminated in the construction of the Springs Hotel in 1907. Major new tracks that were constructed around this time to connect the access points, scenic points and huts include the present Pinnacle and Zig Zag Tracks, the Mt Arthur Track, the Panorama Track, and the Middle Island Track (also known as Heywoods Track and the Red Paint Track, or a combination of these names). At this time the HCC appointed a ranger, Mr Gadd, who lived at the Springs from the c.1890s to the early 1900s. Gadd was the first Ranger to be appointed for the mountain park.

This period was also a period in which a scientific interest was taken in Mt Wellington. The mountain was the second site in the world to have a higher and lower level meteorological observation station (at the Pinnacle and the Springs) to provide improved weather forecasting, a facility that was extremely important to Tasmania's largely maritime economy. Also in 1900 a surveying party under H.R. Hutchison spent an extended period surveying the Mt Wellington plateau, leaving several campsites in Wellington Park as evidence. There appears however to have been little resource exploitation of the mountain other than water collection at this time, and consequently few new industrial type places on this part of the mountain date to this period. An exception is the Cascade Sawmill (in Strickland Avenue) which was built in the late 1910s and is likely to have been the mill that resulted in the development of the Sawmill Track and possibly logging tracks near Myrtle Gully (although these may be earlier and related to Degraves Sawmill).

The late 1920s – early 1930s saw a period of renewed track and hut building. Most of this work was undertaken for the Council and much of the labour was supplied by unemployment schemes. The Depression appears to have been a period for generally upgrading visitor facilities in the 'Mountain Park'. The huts that were built in this period were mainly visitor shelters and a number were constructed in stone. The new tracks were also built to last and included a number of substantial tracks still in use today, including the Lenah Valley Track, the Old Hobartians Track, Hunters Track, the Organ Pipes Track, the Myrtle Gully Track, the Hobart Rivulet Track and Reids Track.13 The 13 Some of these tracks (eg, the Hobart Rivulet Track) are likely to have been in existence before this period, but there is no available information to substantiate this.


16

Exhibition Gardens and new stone shelter (the Alan Walker Chalet) were also constructed at this time, using money raised by a public exhibition held for the purpose.

With the continuation of the Depression, new unemployment schemes were proposed. One of the more major Depression construction works in Tasmania was the construction of the Pinnacle Road (the Springs to the Pinnacle) in the mid-1930s. The road was built progressively with an initial Springs camp and a later camp just below Big Bend. The road was opened in 1937 with much fan fare and a new lookout constructed at the Pinnacle. The Pinnacle Road cut across a number of the earlier walking tracks, even those from just a few years earlier, and appears to have resulted in the discontinued use of a number of quite major earlier tracks. Hut construction continued however, and the relatively newly formed Wellington Ski Club and Hobart Walking Club constructed huts, a ski run and ice skating rink above Big Bend. The HWC hut (Luckman's Hut) was the beginning of a long and intimate connection with Wellington Park for the HWC, an involvement, in part a hut and track caretaker role, which has continued to the present day. During this period the HCC began appointing honorary rangers for the mountain. The role of the rangers was primarily to carry out track maintenance and deter illegal activities, in particular possum hunting - a popular means of earning money in the Depression. Known Honorary Rangers are Danny Griffiths and Noel Lakin.

From the late 1930s to the 1960s, the use of the mountain continued to be mainly recreationally focussed. It was a popular destination for day trippers who came on foot or by vehicle to sight see, walk, socialise, court and ski (at least 4 ski runs were recognised, although only one was cleared for this purpose). Small groups continued to use the huts for overnight (mainly weekend) stays, and maintained and upgraded these huts, but rarely built new ones. The last new hut to be built with Council permission was Nicholsons Hut in the Myrtle Gully area, but this was never completed. The huts tended to be rebuilt in stone which had a better chance of withstanding the frequent bushfires that occurred on the mountain. A small number of tea houses were also established just outside the Park and provided refreshment for the walkers on the Mountain or visitors to the edge of the Mountain bushland, thereby providing an additional source of income for a small number of nearby farms. No major new tracks appear to have been built over this time.

Changing technology after World War II bought many changes, and a number of these affected Mount Wellington and the way in which was used: New communication technology, in particular television, led to the construction of two TV transmission towers and associated infrastructure near the Pinnacle. Still an important source of water for Hobart, Mt Wellington became less important when the Lake Fenton Scheme came on-line in c.1930. A large gravel pit near the Rivulet Track is also likely to have been developed in this period.

One of the main changes was the increasing private ownership of cars which meant that people in Hobart could go further afield to recreate, and the day-use of the mountain by locals decreased dramatically. That part of Wellington Park managed by the HCC however continued to be used by people of all ages in the adjacent suburbs, particularly Fern Tree, and the HWC maintained a regular walks programme on the mountain. The stream of sightseers to the Pinnacle continued, and the Springs continued to be a popular picnic and play area and trail head. Although day walks by a variety of people continued at a considerably reduced level, a wide range of the walking tracks continued to be used.

The 1960s brought some events that significantly changed people's appreciation and use of Mt Wellington. In 1960 flood-related landslips occurred in at least 2 places, destroying the Upper Pinnacle Road Chalet and the Fern Tree Bower. Then in 1967 the extensive bushfires, although not resulting in major damaging to the historical heritage places in the HCC managed part of Wellington Park, are regarded widely as having significantly changed the mountain and the feel of the mountain. Post-fire activities included the rebuilding of damaged huts and some rehabilitation, notably at the Springs which suffered significant damage with the loss of the Springs Hotel and Upper Shelter


17

Shed and considerable damage to the Exhibition Gardens and other plantings. Rehabilitation at the Springs included the planting of a native garden below the former Springs Hotel site and the transplanting of rhododendrons to the park at the bottom of Pillingers Drive. Soon after the 1967 bushfires, there was also a considerable amount of unplanned fire trail construction. This resulted in the destruction of several early hut sites and sections of historic track. The new fire trails also tended to cut across other major tracks, resulting in a major change in how the track network was used.

No historic heritage places are considered to have been created since the 1967 bushfires except for four new private huts that were built (without permission) in the HCC managed area. These were located near Mt Arthur and on its lower slopes.

Identified Place Types Recreational type places in the HCC managed part of Wellington Park vastly outweigh all other types of places. If natural features are not included, then recreation related places comprise c.68% of all places in this area. Eighty three places are huts and 76 places are tracks, most of which were built and used for recreation. The other recreation type places are parks/gardens, viewpoints, ski fields and an ice skating rink. The other major category of place is 'natural feature' with 33 such places being identified, including peaks, cliff lines, rock features, waterfalls and an area of native vegetation. Industry related places are relatively minor with only 8 timber industry related places, and 1 commercial quarry, 1 ice house complex, 2 farm related places and 2 TV transmission towers being identified. The other main identified places are service related and include 7 water supply places (this includes the Mountain Water Supply System which is the most extensive historic heritage place associated with Wellington Park), 6 transport related places (roads, bridges & work camps), 6 survey related places (2 reference points and 4 survey party camps), 4 scientific stations (3 weather observatories and 1 rain gauge) and 2 convict work stations. Memorial type places or places with other predominantly social value include 6 monuments, 1 grave and 2 plantings sites. The other places identified are the Springs Hotel, 4 dwellings, an information panel and one site whose function is unknown.

Glenorchy City Council Land

That part of Wellington Park within the Glenorchy municipality appears to have had a relatively low level of historical usage. Other than the New Town Way which was the first route to the Mt Wellington summit (used from 1798) and which is on the southeastern boundary of GCC managed area (and likely to be mainly within the HCC managed area), there are few early historical heritage places known in this area. The identified places appear to date mainly from the 1890s through to the 1930s, and are mainly farming related and, to a lesser extent, water supply related.

The bulk of identified places occur in the Upper Merton area, which was considered a part of Merton, a suburb of Glenorchy, and which is located on the southern/eastern side of Humphreys Rivulet above the Tolosa Street Reservoir. The land in this area appears to have been subdivided and purchased for small farms in the 1880s, but with no development occurring until the 1890s. At the end of World War I the area was further subdivided for Soldier Settlement and a number of farms were also established then. The farms at Upper Merton were mainly orchards and small fruit farms and appear to have been mainly productive in the 1910s-1920s, with only Austins Farm known to be still productive well into the 1930s. Austin also had a sawmill on his property which operated in the early 1930s. The farms in Upper Merton were all connected by Farleys Road (an extension of Tolosa Street). Upper Tolosa Street was also a recreational destination for residents of Glenorchy, with walkers travelling up to the tea house at 'Valleydale', the Klug's property, for refreshments. Farleys Road is extant in its upper part today but little remains of the farms in the area except for house


18

foundations, stone walls, fences, plantings, revegetating clearings, artefact scatters, refrigeration boxes in Humphreys Rivulet and a possible grave.

Most of the farms had closed down by the mid-1930s, when the GCC acquired most of the land in the area as water catchment. By this time Limekiln Gully Reservoir, thought to be the main site of the earlier (c.1902-3) Merton Lime Company quarries, had been constructed (built 1924-25) to augment the Glenorchy water supply, and the Council wanted to make further use of the main Humphreys Creek catchment for water supply. To this end Knight's Creek Reservoir was ultimately built in 1958. The various sections of pipeline in the Upper Merton area suggest that water was taken directly from Humphreys Rivulet prior to this.

A second cluster of farms, also probably dating from the late 1800s, but with at least one continuing until the late 1950s, occurred along the Montrose Trail, a road believed to have been built by the Gordon family to access their farm. As with the Upper Merton area, little remains of these former farms other than house foundations, stone walls, other fencing, artefact scatters, revegetating clearings, plantings and two recent headstones that commemorate the former owners of one of the farms.

The Montrose Trail leads up onto the Goat Hills, an area of social importance to a number of Glenorchy residents. Apart from the power line which runs across the northeastern edge of the GCC managed part of Wellington Park, which dates to c.1916 and is part of the first hydro-electric power scheme in southern Tasmania, most other historic heritage places in the GCC managed part of the Park are a few places along the Goat Hills – Mt Hull – Mt Connection Ridge. This includes the Stock Track, thought to be an early (probably c.1880s) track/route from Collinsvale to Glenorchy which ran around the east side of the ridge from Fairy Glen to Montrose, and was later, at least in part, a logging track. Other identified places in this part of the GCC managed area of Wellington Park include a hut, a cave site, a track and a sawmill on the upper slopes /ridge of Mt Hull. The Montrose Trail and possibly the Stock Route are now used and managed as Park fire trails.

Identified Place Types Farming related places are by far the most common place type identified in that part of Wellington Park managed by the GCC. These places (25) alone comprise c.44% of identified places in this area. The farm related places include whole farms, clearings, areas of stone walling and other fencing, artefact scatters and plantings. There are also a small number of additional places that are related to the historic farming. These include Farleys Road (built to access the farms in Upper Merton), the Montrose Trail (built to access farms in the Upper Montrose area), the Stock Track, a dwelling, refrigeration boxes, a possible grave on Humphreys Rivulet, and the Tea House at 'Valleydale'. There are few other industry related places identified, with only 3 timber harvesting places (1 logging track and 2 sawmills) and 1 quarry identified. Water supply features are a prominent feature type, with 1 waterhole, 2 dams and 4 pipelines being identified. There is also one electricity supply related place (a power line) and one survey cairn known in the area. Relatively few recreation type places have been identified in this part of Wellington Park. In total 8 huts, one cave site and one walking track have been identified, but not all the huts were constructed or used for recreational purposes. The other identified places are 3 natural features of significance and 3 sites whose functions are unknown.

Parks & Wildlife Service

The PWS managed area of Wellington Park also appears to have had a relatively low level of use in the last c.200 years, and few historic heritage places have been identified. The main identified uses are late 19th Century to mid- late 20th Century timber harvesting which has been the dominant


19

activity, high country possum trapping and snaring in the early-mid 1900s, some water harvesting from major creeks around the edge of Wellington Park, early 20th Century tourism and recreation focussed in the Collinsvale area of the Park, and low level recreational use by bushwalkers throughout most of the 20th Century. The identified places mainly relate to these activities.

One of the earliest known uses was the cutting of hop poles on the Plateau by some of the major hop growers, and this use of the plateau area of the Wellington Park may date back to the 1860s. Only one known area has been identified in the Gum Top area. Access to the area is likely to have been provided by the Gum Top Track which was in existence by 1890s and may have been constructed soon after the area was surveyed in c.1869. There are also know to have been some relatively high altitude attempts at small fruit growing in the Gum Top area, mainly in the early-mid 1900s.

The Gum Top area has also been important as a timber harvesting area from at least the early 1900s up to the 1960s and 1970s. There is a major concentration of identified sawmill places in the Gum Top area, and these mainly date to the 1930s – 1960s. Other known foci of timber industry related places are Mountain River, the northwestern slopes between Illa Brook and the Lachlan River headwaters, and the Collinsvale area (Collins Cap and Fairy Glen) where sawmills operated on the margins of Wellington Park. In these three areas a small number of former sawmills, logging areas and logging tracks have been identified both inside and outside the PWS managed part of Wellington Park.

Most of the identified historic roads and logging tracks in the area of Wellington Park managed by the PWS have been upgraded and are used today as fire trails. The other main roads/tracks that have been identified are two major stock routes – the Jefferys Track (which ran from Lachlan to Crabtree) and the Stock Track (which ran from Collinsvale to Glenorchy). The age of these are not known, but they both probably date back to some time between the 1860s and 1880s when the areas were settled.

In the Collinsvale area settlement started in the c.1870s and land was rapidly taken up. There are a small number of farms and farm clearings dating from the early settlement to the early 1900s that may have been in, or partly in, the present Wellington Park. Elsewhere in the area managed by the PWS farming did not appear to occur within the present day Park, although there is understood to have been some summer sheep grazing carried out by Lachlan Valley farmers in the early-mid 1900s in the higher country within the Park. There are no identified remains from this use.

There appear to be few places resulting from the late 19th Century tourism push in the Collinsvale area or from local recreational activities. The Myrtle Forest and Fairy Glen Reserves were created in 1912 and the track from Myrtle Forest to Collins Bonnet was cut in 1915 to encourage tourist use of the area. Few other places relating to this use have been identified. There are a small number of other hut remains and walking tracks in the area. The huts are mainly located on the lower slopes of the plateau peaks or in saddles between the peaks, while the identified tracks are in the Collins Bonnet to Thark Ridge area, or are short tracks through thick scrub up to the various plateau peaks from adjacent saddles. The tracks are thought to relate mainly to bushwalkers, but it possible the huts were constructed by possum hunters, or were also used by possum hunters.

Possum hunting (trapping & snaring) was a popular occupation in the area mainly in the 1930s Depression, and is known to have continued into the mid-late 1900s. The possum hunters are thought to have used a large area of the higher Park, and access is likely to have been from many points, but is definitely known via the Gum Top Road.

Identified Place Types In the area of Wellington Park managed by the PWS some 49% of identified places (30) are related to the timber industry alone. These timber industry places include 19 sawmills, 6 harvesting areas, 1 log hauler, 1 log loading ramp and 3 logging tracks. The only other primary or secondary industry


20

type places identified are 5 farming related places and 1 snaring place. After sawmills, tracks are the most numerous place type with 3 logging tracks, 2 stock tracks and 7 walking tracks identified. Seven dwellings have been identified, most of which are huts that are likely to have been used for recreation and possibly by possum hunters. The other identified places are 2 historic survey campsites, 2 water supply related places and 7 natural features of significance (mainly mountain peaks).

Outside the Park but Nearby

The use of the peripheries of present day Wellington Park is very complex. Consequently, the following is a brief summary of the areas and activities that had a close connection to Wellington Park. The four areas which appear to have a particularly strong connection to Mt Wellington and hence to the present day Wellington Park are Fern Tree, South Hobart-Cascades, Glenorchy (Merton) and Collinsvale. In other areas people have utilised Wellington Range and have had a connection to Wellington Park for over at least the last 125 years, but because fewer people resided so close to the mountain in these other areas, the level of connection does not appear to have been so strong, except for a few individuals or families.

The South Hobart area has had the longest-term connection to Mt Wellington by virtue of being on the route between Hobart and the mountain since the settlement of Hobart. As well, large tracts of land not in Wellington Park, but acquired by Degraves in the early 1800s to supply timber and water to his mills and brewery, have stayed as forested land. This combination of factors meant that, for many, the mountain started where the forest began, hence recreational opportunities and resource utilisation and associated places occurred throughout this area. Today, many of the residents of South Hobart, particularly above the Cascade Brewery live there because of the proximity of the area to the mountain and the consequent scenic values and recreational access, and a number of residents have a strong interest in the history of the Hobart face of the Mountain. The main access points historically and today have been Old Farm Road and Strickland Avenue.

Fern Tree has also had a long history of connection to Mt Wellington and Wellington Park. The area was first developed in the c.1830s when the Huon Road was constructed through the area. Initially and until the c.1940s the area was predominantly a rural area with numerous small fruit farms. This rural community lived and worked on the slopes of Mt Wellington and to a lesser extent recreated on the mountain. Boarding houses, the Hotel at Fern Tree, the Fern Tree Bower and the 'Strawberry Hill' Tea House also provided stepping off points and/or destinations on the mountain for tourists and local recreationalists. In the 1940s the area became much more residential, with local identities and wealthy people from interstate building rustic homes and summer homes in Fern Tree, and creating magnificent gardens that blended with the surrounding bush. Since then, many of the people who have chosen to live in Fern Tree do so because they wish to live in a bush environment, enjoy the recreational opportunities offered by Wellington Park and treasure their clear views of Mt Wellington. Also, over time, a number of Fern Tree residents had specific connections to the Wellington Park area through working on the construction of the Pinnacle Road and the Mountain Water Supply System, through working in the Park as HCC employees, through servicing the Springs Hotel, through researching or photographing on the mountain, and through regular use of the mountain for recreation. The strong level of connection to the mountain is also evidenced by the Fern Tree Community Association's interest in its management.

The Collinsvale community is a tight knit rural community with a strong attachment to Mt Wellington that is similar to that in Fern Tree. The area was settled in the late 1800s, and the locals established farms, orchards and sawmills on the land surrounding the present day Wellington Park and consequently became familiar with, and utilised the resources of, the adjacent Park area. From


21

the early 1900s they valued the natural resources of the mountain and this is indicated by the push by Collinsvale residents to reserve areas of native forest, cut walking tracks into the Park and establish tourist accommodation facilities just outside the Park. This long term association and the family connections with those who worked on the mountain have resulted in the Collinsvale community having a strong attachment to Mt Wellington and those parts of Wellington Park behind Collinsvale. The community have indicated in a previous heritage study (Waight 1995) that many of the places in the local area, including in and adjacent to Wellington Park, are of historical and social significance to them.

In the Glenorchy area the connection to Wellington Park appears to be mainly through the connections to Upper Merton, which was a suburb of Glenorchy until the land was acquired by the GCC in the 1930s-40s as water catchment. Many Glenorchy residents still regard the Upper Merton area as a part of Glenorchy. There are also still residents of Glenorchy who have strong family attachments to Upper Merton and the Montrose Trail area. While there does not appear to be a strong recreational focus on the mountain by Glenorchy residents, there are a number of residents who recreate in various parts of the Park and the Montrose Trail and Goat Hills have been identified as areas of recreational and general social importance. It is clear that historically there was also a consistent level of local recreational use of the Upper Merton area, especially in the early 1900s when the Klug's tea house operated, and that some level of recreational use still occurs.

Identified Place Types Overall, the type places identified on the outer fringes of Wellington Park reflect the main historic activities on the lower flanks and higher parts of the mountain. Seven timber industry related places (mostly sawmills) were identified, and these are concentrated in the Fern Tree – South Hobart area, the Collinsvale area, the east side of the upper Lachlan valley and Mountain River. Other common place types identified were 6 farm related places (5 farms and 1 clearing) and 9 accommodation related places (3 houses, 5 huts and 1 Girl Guide Lodge). Some of the identified huts are recreational related huts and day shelters, and these are located in South Hobart and Fern Tree. Other identified places related to recreation on the mountain are 3 walking tracks and 4 tea houses, also in the South Hobart and Fern Tree areas. The other identified places are 1 school, 1 community hall, 1 cartage business, and 1 tree stump with social value in the Fern Tree area, 1 modified tree and 1 water supply related place.

The places outside Wellington Park identified in this study reflect places encountered incidentally in the literature or places of historical and social significance contributed by oral informants. There are likely to be many more historic heritage places outside the Park that have not been identified by this study.

1.2.3 Interpretation of the Inventory

In using the inventory to examine the number, range and types of historic heritage places in Wellington Park, it must be remembered that the inventory is not a complete or ground truthed listing of historic heritage places, and there are a number of factors that affect the way in which it has been constructed. A summary is provided here to help interpret the inventory and the findings reported above, but a fuller discussion of the quality of the existing knowledge base can be found in Section 2.2 (Audit Findings).

Firstly, the inventory is not based on comprehensive data of any kind (eg, historical, oral/community knowledge and field survey), hence is unlikely to list all historic heritage places that will occur in Wellington Park. A particular deficiency in this respect is the limited identification of places of


22

aesthetic and social value. Secondly, because many of the places are derived from the historical literature and recent histories, there is no guarantee that there will be physical evidence of all the places. Thirdly, because there is quite patchy data for many of the places, and because place names change over time or depending on the user, it may be that some of the places identified are listed more than once under different names. Where this is known only one listing has been used (& counted), but there are a number of cases where this is likely, but not known. In these cases, in order not to lose information, all the places have been listed separately and counted as separate places.

Another factor that has affected the number of places in the inventory is the way in which 'place' has been defined. The definition of 'a place' is always a somewhat artificial construct that relies on professional judgement. In general in this project, discrete locations where an historical activity occurred and discrete places generally are treated as individual 'places'. However, a number of features or places have been listed as one place where they are closely connected historically and physically, particularly where they have been previously recognised as such (eg, the Mountain Water Supply System and the Springs Hotel (which includes the farm area at the Lower Springs)). In other cases, what might be regarded as one place has been recognised as two or more places. This is usually where there is a lack of confidence that the places share a common history even though they may be physically connected (eg, Collins Cap Track North and Collins Cap Track South). In other cases, more than one place identified from the historical record may occur in the one place. In general in the inventory such places have been listed as separate places unless there is some historical connection or a high level of confidence that they are in the same exact location.

The above factors all affect any analysis of the number of places in Wellington Park and the main management areas. As a consequence, the statistics in Section 1.2.3 have been given in approximate terms and the figures should be considered as approximations only. The low level of accuracy of the location information for many places in the inventory also means that in a number of cases it is difficult to know whether a place is inside or outside Wellington Park or a particular management area. This will also affect the accuracy of reporting the numbers of places in the Park and in particular management areas, as will, to a lesser extent, the fact that some places occur within more than one management area and have in such cases been counted as occurring more than once. A similar issue arises when considering the number of different place types in any particular area, as a number of places are of more than one type. In such cases, the place has been counted for each place type it represents. This means that the total number of places (by place type) in any area is not an accurate indication of the number of actual places in that area. For this reason total numbers of place types have not been used in the discussion in Section 1.2.2.


Part 2

AUDIT .


23

2.1 AUDIT APPROACH

2.1.1 Introduction

Although the present project has been termed an 'audit project' the actual auditing of the historic heritage has only been one component of the project which also developed an inventory and provides management advice (refer Introduction).

The Project Brief audit requirements (refer Appendix 1) were to – provide recommendations as to what further ground truthing is required for any of the identified

values, sites and resources; identify what further information is required to inform future directions planning and the

conservation and management of historic heritage; and identify and assess the following values in relation to the heritage sites and resources:

historic values, archaeological values, visual and aesthetic values (including landscape values) and other social and community heritage values.

The audit component of the present project has been designed to provide a basis to achieve this. The nature of the audit, and the advice and information that can be provided from it, is however constrained to some extent by the amount of information available for the historic heritage.14 To provide most useful data the audit has been carried out after the inventory work was undertaken (so all identified historic heritage place data could be considered in the audit).15 The audit component method is outlined below.

The Wellington Park Management Trust also expressed interest in having the audit assess and report on the 'knowns' and 'unknowns' generally in relation to the historic heritage within Wellington Park. The audit results have therefore, when appropriate, been couched in terms of –

what we know we know what we know we don't know, and what we know we don't know16.

2.1.2 Audit Method

The audit has been undertaken in two parts – 1. individual historic heritage places/areas/precincts, and 2. the heritage of Wellington Park generally. 17

The audit findings are reported in these same two parts (refer Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2).

14 The areas that have been most constrained are the ability to provided advice on the values of individual places and for landscape values generally. 15 The audit has not been revised to include the approximately 25 heritage places (sites) that were added to the inventory on the basis of comment on the draft report as the data is very similar to that for the previously identified heritage places and it is unlikely that the general analysis results would change if the additional places were included. 16 As this is not possible to know technically, this is really an attempt to assess what else we might not know about that hasn't already been covered. 17 There has also been some auditing of current historic heritage management provisions as part of the third component of the project (provision of management advice).


24

Individual Places The audit of individual places18 has focussed on assessing what is known about the individual historic heritage places (objects, features, sites, complexes and areas) identified through the inventory component of this project and listed in the project inventory. As it was not considered necessary to include places outside Wellington Park unless there was some known or likely connection to Wellington Park, 367 places were selected from the inventory for auditing.

Ten categories of heritage information were assessed. These categories were designed to provide information on the quality of heritage information for management, and can be regarded as providing data of two types – 1. information about each place that allows us to understand what it is and what its values are, and 2. information relating directly to the management of each place. The categories used are –

Place Information Management Information place reliability (is this a real place?) historical background information fabric (physical evidence) data condition data significance assessment

place type (eg, object, site, complex) place record management policy advice whether registered/listed & where

For each category of information the assessment was into one of four or five rankings from 'high' to 'none'. The rankings were selected to try and provide some general level of comparison from category to category. Where applicable, a four level ranking – good (high), moderate, poor (low) and unknown (none) – was used, but this ranking had to be modified for some categories of data. The actual ranking used for each category of information is shown in Table 3.

Given the requirement of the project to assess the values of identified places, the audit also included an assessment (based on the current available information) of the 1. condition, 2. integrity and 3. general level of cultural significance of each place. Because of the extremely limited amount of information available for all but a few identified places, this assessment must be regarded as preliminary and extreme care should be taken when using the assessment as a basis for making decisions that will result in any new place intervention. Because of the poor overall quality of data available for most places19, the project has not assessed places against the different aspects of cultural significance (ie, historic, scientific, aesthetic/landscape, social & spiritual) unless this has been previously assessed.20

The full assessment for each place and for all audit places is provided in the Heritage Place Audit (Volume 2, Section 2), and a tabulated summary of this is provided in Table 3.

Heritage Generally To audit the historic heritage generally requires a qualitative type analysis which assesses the overall understanding and knowledge of the historic heritage of Wellington Park at a general level. The present study looked at the amount of research carried out, where this has been carried out, and assessed the gaps in the information on a thematic and spatial/geographic basis. It used the project inventory, our existing understanding of the history of Wellington Park, a review of past (& this project) historical, landscape and heritage studies, and the authors' personal knowledge of the Park environment and heritage as a basis for the evaluation.

18 All heritage places audited are heritage 'sites' as per the WPMP. 19 It should be noted that less than 63% of audited places were considered to have enough information to make even this level of assessment (refer Table 3). 20 Previous assessments are reported in the Heritage Site & Precinct Inventory (Volume 2, Section 1) only.


25

2.2 AUDIT FINDINGS

2.2.1 Heritage Place Data

The following discussion reports, by heritage information category, on the quality of the knowledge currently available for identified places, including for their management, and on the audited values of the identified places in, or adjacent or connected to, Wellington Park. The summary data on which the discussion is based is provided in Table 3, and the full details are provided in Volume 2, Section 2.

Place Reliability Of the 367 places considered in the audit, 78% can be considered to be reliably identified as individual historic heritage places. One place is part of another place, but has been recognised separately as it has additional values, and approximately 7% (27) of places may be another identified place, but more research is required to clarify this. There is inadequate information to determine whether 14% of places are legitimate historic heritage places. 21 This outcome is not unexpected given the way in which the places have been identified and given the extremely limited amount of individual place based research undertaken for all but a handful of places.

Location Accuracy The accuracy of location for places is relatively high compared to other categories of information for individual places. Thirty four percent of places are considered to have highly reliable location information and 23% have moderately accurate location information. This means that c.57% of places should be relatively easily located on the ground. Of the other 43% of places, 27% have a low level of accurate location information and 16% of places have no location information at all. More research (field survey, historical background &/or oral information) is required to have any confidence about the location of these places. Given the overall low level of information generally for individual places, this level of location accuracy is surprisingly high and appears to reflect the importance of oral information for locating places and the availability of maps with feature locations (due to recreational rather than historic interests?).

Historical Background Information Only 1 place (ie, <1% of identified places), the Mountain Water Supply System, is considered to have good known historical information, and there is a moderate level of historical information for another 6% of places. This means that only 7% of places in and adjacent to Wellington Park have adequate historical information for being able to make management decisions with any confidence. There is no information at all for 52% of places and poor information for 41% of places. This is a reflection of the number of places that have been identified through field observation by project informants, and of the fact that the historical background research carried out to date (including this project) has been aimed identifying places rather than understanding them (which is not unreasonable since the aim was primarily to compile an inventory).

Fabric Information There is also a considerable lack of information about the physical evidence/nature of the identified places, with 39% of places having no information about what is there and 52% of places having only

21 Places that are not legitimate are those places which may not be historical in nature or do not have some historical value, or which simply may not exist as they are based on dubious information.


26

very limited (poor) information22. Five percent of places have a moderate level of description of the physical evidence and only 4% places have a good level of physical evidence description. It should be noted that the level of physical information is not the same as the level of documentation of the physical evidence (refer Place Record, below). Those places with good information are the Mountain Water Supply System and the huts documented by Abrahams (2001); and those with a moderate level of information are those recorded as part of this project or by McConnell & Scripps' (1998) EIA. Analysis of the audit shows that most places have either historical information or fabric information, but that only a very few places have neither. This is again a reflection that places have been identified from a range of sources.

Condition Data The information available about place condition is of a similar quality to fabric information (presumably because this information also needs to be collected from field assessment). Overall, c.93% of places have no or poor condition information (85% have no data and 8% have poor data), while 4% of places have moderate condition information and 4% are considered to have good information. Those with good information are the Mountain Water Supply System and the huts assessed by Abrahams (2001).

Significance Assessment The level of previous significance assessment is also very low. Only 1 place (the Mountain Water Supply System) has had a comprehensive (full) analysis of cultural significance undertaken, and only 7 places are considered to have had a preliminary analysis (ie, which considered the range of aspects of significance, but where there is inadequate place information to make a reliable/final assessment). These include the Exhibition Gardens23, the Springs Hotel, NW Bay River Weir Hut and four places in McRobies Gully assessed in McConnell & Scripps' (1998) EIA. A partial assessment (ie, generally of only one or two aspects of significance – those for which there is information) has been undertaken for only 11% of places. These are mainly places that have been identified as having social significance by oral informants to this project or in Waight's (1995) Stage 2 Glenorchy Heritage Study. There is no previous assessment of any type for 87% of identified places.

Place Record Only 4% of places have what is considered to be a good place record (ie, a level of record that is adequate for the place type and sufficient to base management on without further work). The bulk of these places are the extant huts documented by Abrahams (2001), and the others include the Mountain Water Supply System, a car body in Upper Merton and the four places in McRobies Gully. Sixty five percent of places have no place record, and the other 31% of places have partial information. In most cases the places with only a partial record do not have a formal place record completed, and have only miscellaneous hard copy information held in place folders created during the present project (to hold bits and pieces of place information collected by the project).

Management Policy/Advice This category relates to the available management policy or advice for a place that specifically considers management of the cultural heritage values.24 It does not include general advice such as the management policy for historic heritage in the WPMP. Very few places have useful existing management advice, with 99% of places having no specific place management policy/advice. Only 1 22 Poor physical evidence information is considered to be information about a small part of a place, information from only a brief inspection and/or only a very brief description for a place (eg, 'chimney base, or 'a pile of stones and some artefacts'). 23 A full assessment is currently being carried out for the Exhibition Gardens, but the results are not yet available. 24 In the audit, places that have only specific management policy and/or advice which does not consider cultural heritage values (eg, walking tracks and roads) are considered to have no management policy/advice.


27

place (the Mountain Water Supply System) is considered to have detailed management advice since it has a Conservation Management Plan (CMP). None of the other 366 places25 have a CMP and only 4% of places have preliminary advice or policy (ie, advice that considers the full place and range of values). These are mainly the sites documented by this study at Upper Merton, the 4 sites in McRobies Gully and the Exhibition Gardens. Another 4% of places have partial management policy advice (ie, advice that covers only a part of a place or an aspect of the cultural values). These are mainly the extant huts researched by Abrahams (2001).

Registration/Listing Only 2% (7) of places are listed on any register or have been nominated to a register. Two places are registered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) (the Mountain Water Supply System and the Neika Schoolhouse); three places are listed in a planning scheme (Fern Tree Bower, Silver Falls & Neika Schoolhouse); and three places are listed in the Tasmanian Historical Places Inventory (THPI) (the Ice House Complex, Mt Wellington Convict Public Work Station & Cascades Convict Timbergetting Station).26 There are however a small number of places that are included within (as part of) one of the above THR and planning scheme listings. These are the Bower Track, Fern Tree Bower, Silver Falls, St Crispins Well Hut and NW Bay River Weir Hut, all of which are included within the Mountain Water Supply System.

Level of Place Places can be considered as different levels or types of place. The commonly recognised levels are moveable object, feature, site, site complex and area (includes precinct). These levels are hierarchical – where, for example, sites generally contain one or more features and site complexes generally contain one or more sites (and possible isolated features). Areas may be extensive single features such as landscape features with cultural significance or may be a cultural landscape or other area of site complexes, sites &/or features, usually with their landscape setting. The level of a place will affect how it is managed and, generally, a higher level place type will have higher cultural significance. No cultural landscapes have been identified to date for Wellington Park, but 7 heritage areas (2% of places) have been identified. These are the extensive natural features. Most of the places (86%) are assessed as being sites (ie, discrete, limited area places), but 4% of the audited places are considered to be site complexes and 7% are considered to be features. Three places (<1%) are 'moveable object' type places.

Integrity The integrity of a place is the extent to which the historical evidence (ie, fabric), meanings and relationships between elements of a place remain intact and can be interpreted in the landscape. Places with high integrity have had little modification of a nature that is unrelated to the values of the place (ie, there is little overprinting by unrelated uses). It is an important aspect of the value of a heritage place and the level of integrity of a place also has important implications for how a place should be managed. Because of the history of Wellington Park and the limited amount of intensive use and development, at least 27% of identified places are considered to have a high level of integrity and an additional 5% of places to have high-moderate level integrity. It is likely that many more have high integrity, but there was insufficient information to assess 56% of the audited places. Of the remaining 11% of places, 7 are assessed as having moderate integrity, 3 as having moderate-low integrity, 9 as having low integrity and 4 as having none (ie, essentially have been completely destroyed). By far the greatest cause of loss of integrity has been the entire or partial bulldozing of places in the spate of poorly planned post-1967 bushfire fire trail construction. Other causes have been the construction of the Pinnacle Road in the 1930s and tourism development at the Springs and

25 And none of the additional 25 places have a CMP or other historic heritage management policy/advice. 26 Places listed in a planning scheme or on the THR are subject to controls. There are no controls for places listed on THPI.


28

the Pinnacle from the early 1930s. This suggests the historic heritage values were not considered or given high priority in these developments

Condition Condition and integrity are not the same – a place may have high integrity, but be in poor condition, and vice versa. Condition is a measure of the health of the physical attributes of a place. As there is little condition information available for the identified places, only a few places (12%) could have their condition assessed as part of this project. Of these, 17% (2% overall) are in good condition, 25% (3% overall) in moderate condition, 25% (3% overall) in poor condition and 33% (4% overall) in very poor condition. It is likely that overall the majority of sites in Wellington Park are in poor condition. This is a reflection of the fact that the majority date from the late 1800s – early 1900s and have been destroyed, or partly destroyed by removal, demolition, fire, landslip and flood, and/or degraded by natural weathering processes over this time with no active conservation work having occurred at most of the places.

Significance Where there is sufficient information, the project has assessed the likely level of significance of each place (ie, national, state, regional and local) and whether the place has high, medium or low significance at this level. Given the paucity of information for most sites the assessments are indicative only and must be regarded as preliminary. The assessment has taken into account the standard aspects of significance (historical, scientific, social, aesthetic and spiritual significance), factors such as integrity, rarity and representativeness, and the criteria for listing on the THR to the extent possible.27

There was insufficient information to make even a preliminary significance assessment for 37% of places considered in the audit. However, 6% of places were found to have state level significance, 19% of places regional level significance and 36% of places local level significance. Some places may have higher level significance –8 places assessed being of local significance, may have regional level significance; 35 places assessed as being of regional significance may potentially have state level significance, and 4 of the places identified as having state significance may potentially have national level or international level significance. The four places of potential national and/or international significance are Wragge's Summit Observatory and Wragge's Springs Observatory (also the Rangers House site), the Exhibition Gardens and the Mountain Water Supply System. Mt Wellington itself may also have state and/or national level significance as an inspirational and historical landscape and as a landmark, but the mountain as a whole has not been assessed as part of this project (but should be considered as part of a Wellington Park cultural landscape assessment). It is likely that there will be more places with state, regional or local significance in the 133 unassessed places.

Only 5 places were assessed at this stage as having no cultural significance. These are – the Middle Island Fire Trail, the New Town Track Hut, the South Snake Plains Track (New), NW Bay River Weir Hut and the Summit Viewing Shelter.

There are many more made structures in Wellington Park that have no cultural significance. In general (but not universal) these are post-1967 features. These have not been included in the inventory or audit as it would have added significantly to the complexity of the project and is not

27 Note – as per the Burra Charter, condition is not used in the assessment of significance. It is used along with other factors to guide decisions about the preservation and management of a place.


29

considered necessary or useful (although it might be useful to establish and maintain a list of places/features with no historic heritage significance.

The assessment of significance in this audit has focussed on that of individual places, however such an assessment fails to acknowledge that areas or types of places may collectively have higher significance, even though individual heritage places may only have low level significance. A potential example for Wellington Park are the recreational huts and tracks which individually are mostly assessed as having local to regional significance, but which collectively, as a related network of tracks and huts, may have state level significance as the physical evidence of a major Tasmanian historical focus of recreation, which as a collection of places are able to well represent this history; and which are also evidence of a unique tradition of use. Another example is the Pinnacle area which has a small number of significant but highly disturbed places, but which as an area is likely to have state level significance for its long term European history (since 1798), for its role in the history of surveying and early European exploration of Tasmania, as one of the main foci of recreation in Tasmania since European settlement, and for its associations with significant people (eg, George Bass, Lady Jane Franklin & Charles Darwin) and as a significant historical landmark.

2.2.2 Heritage General

General Level of Knowledge – Previous Studies

Until the development of the WPMP no historic heritage studies had been carried out in Wellington Park. Since that time a small number of historic heritage studies have been carried out, but only the Mountain Water Supply System studies (not undertaken as Wellington Park studies) as a suite can be considered to constitute an adequate and reliable body of information for heritage management purposes. No professional, areal (as opposed to site) specific or thematic historic heritage studies have been carried out for Wellington Park and the present study is the first general historic heritage study to be carried out since the WPMP was put into effect and only the second general historic heritage study to be undertaken for the Park. As a consequence there are significant historic heritage data deficiencies.

The first identified study proper was an historical overview (with some use of oral information) to provide historic context and an inventory of sites as background for the preparation of the WPMP. This work was undertaken by Network 208 (Hepper & de Gryse 1994) although some information that had been collected previously on historic places and places of interest (HCC 1991) was also taken into account. The Network 208 study focussed on 'historic sites' and was essentially a desktop study, although a few places were inspected in the field as well. No detailed place records were generated from this study, but summary information is provided as an appendix (Inventory of Sites of European Archaeological Significance) in the Draft Wellington Park Values, Use & Management Inventory (WPMT 1996).28 Macfie (c.1994) was engaged to carry out more detailed background research, but still essentially desktop research. Unfortunately because of a timing issue, his work appears not to have been integrated into the WPMP, but some places he identified have been incorporated into the 1996 Inventory (WPMT 1996).

The only subsequent historic heritage work not related to development or planning assessments has been the development of the Pipeline Track Conservation Management Plan (Murray & Nieberler 1994), the detailed study of the extant huts by Abrahams (2001), and a University of Tasmania student study of Upper Merton (Hingston et al 2001). While these three studies have contributed

28 This is mainly brief historical notes (mostly unreferenced) and a brief description for <50% of places. The historical information for a number of places is of questionable accuracy and appears to have been sourced directly from the HCC (1991) inventory.


30


Information Category Assessment of Place Level of Management Information (total number of places assessed – 367) Δ ∗

Place Reliability reliable 287 78 possible confusion

27 7 other place#

1 <1 unsure 52 14

Location Accuracy high (GPS -

126 7)

34 moderate 83 23 low 98 27 unknown 60 16

Historical Background good 2 <1 moderate 21 6 poor 152 41 unknown 192 52

Fabric (Physical Evidence) Data good 13 4 moderate 18 5 poor 190 52 none 144 39 not applicable (removed)

2 <1

Condition Data good 13 4 moderate 13 4 poor 29 8 unknown 312 85

Significance Assessment full (comprehensive)

1 <1 preliminary 7 2 partial 40 11 none 320 87

Place Record good 16 4 moderate 0 0 partial 112 31 none 239 65

Management Policy/Advice detailed (CMP)

1 <1 preliminary 16 4 partial 15 4 none 331 90 not applicable 4 1

Registration/Listing RNE 0 0 THR 2 <1 Planning Scheme

3 <1 THPI 3 <1

Level of Place complex 16 4 site 316 86 feature 25 7 object 3 1 area 7 2

Place Integrity high 100 27 high-mod 20 5 mod 24 7 mod-low 3 1 low 9 2 none 4 1 unknown 207 56

Place Condition good 8 2 moderate 12 3 poor 12 3 very poor 16 4 unknown 319 87

Place Significance (this project)θ

state 22 6 regional 67 19 local 128 36 none 5 1 unknown 133 37 (possible

national/in'tntnl) 4 1 (possible state) 35 10 (possible

regional) 8 2

Table 3 Historic Heritage Audit Analysis – Summary of Data from Individual Place Audit (Appendix 2).

Δ In the table, the numbers given are the number of places in the individual place audit at the level shown for each category of information; the number in italics in all cases is the percentage of places compared to all places in the audit (ie, 367 places – unless indicated otherwise). ∗ Features which are known collectively (eg, boundary markers and route markers) have not been included in the audit. Also only places within, adjacent to, or likely to have associated features within Wellington Park are included in the audit analysis.

This refers to places that are suspected to be another listed place, but for which there is insufficient evidence to establish this. # This place is only in part an 'other place'. The Individual Place Audit (Appendix 1) lists, but does not assess, an additional 16 'other places' as they have been listed for cross reference purposes only. θ Only 356 places in total are considered in this information category, as 11 places can be considered to be parts of another larger place, hence as having the same level of significance.

31

HIGH SENSITIVITY HISTORIC HERITAGE AREAS WITH PRIORITY FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 1 Gum Top Area 2 Myrtle Forest – Fairy Glen Fringe 3 Central Plateau (indicative area only) 4 Montrose Trail 5 Upper Merton 6 Big Bend 7 Pinnacle 8 Junction Cabin 9 Brushy Creek – Myrtle Gully 10 Hobart Rivulet 11 Springs 12 Fern Tree

4 1 2 5 3 6 8 9

7 10

11 12

WELLINGTON PARK

ON-GROUND

MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Figure 2 Areas in Wellington Park that have historic heritage sensitivity, but which are poorly understood. [Base map provided to the project by the WPMT].


significantly to the historic heritage knowledge for Wellington Park, they have limitations in the data they provide. The most comprehensive and useful are the Pipeline Track CMP studies which were detailed and largely undertaken by heritage professionals (an historian and archaeologists). The studies include the Conservation Management Plan, a detailed history of the place (Scripps 1993a), on-ground archaeological survey and recording of the full place (Hartzell 1993), and additional research and field work undertaken by McConnell et al (1998) for the section east of Wellington Park. The limitation of this work is that it focuses on the Pipeline Track rather than the full Mountain Water Supply System (the Pipeline Track being a recreational feature established on part of the Mountain Water Supply System). The work by Abrahams (2001) is very detailed, but the study was not a historic heritage study, hence does not provide a comprehensive history or significance assessment for the huts, and the management advice does not consider the retention of cultural significance. The Hingston et al (2001) study of Upper Merton is reasonably comprehensive, but suffers from a lack of cultural heritage expertise (eg, the significance assessments have no comparative element and the place information is difficult to use directly for heritage management purposes).

The only other historic heritage studies that have been identified for Wellington Park are the small number of studies that have been carried out essentially as environmental impact assessments (EIAs) or to provide a basis for Wellington Park zone plans. The quality of the assessments carried out for the Springs, Pinnacle and Myrtle Forest Site Development Plans is difficult to assess as there are no separate heritage reports, the historic heritage information in the plans is very vague and generalised, and there is no specific place or values data provided in the Plan or separately. This and the fact that new historic heritage information for these zones has come to light as part of the present project suggest that the zone heritage studies are not adequate for management.

The EIA type studies that have been carried out relate to the Exhibition Gardens (Gulson 2003) and the Springs Hotel (Terry 2001). Terry (2001) carried out a historic heritage impact assessment for water tanks at the rear of the former Springs Hotel Site (as part of the proposal to build a hotel on the lower bench of the Springs Zone). Although providing a preliminary significance assessment for the Springs Hotel, the study cannot be considered to provide adequate place information (historical, fabric or significance) or adequate management advice for the full Springs Hotel site complex. Gulson's study provides detailed historical background information for the Exhibition Gardens site and an assessment of the landscape and historical significance of the site, and as such is only a partial study of the site. A complementary study of the physical evidence, in particular the archaeological remains, is being carried out at present by Austral Archaeology, and a heritage assessment has just been initiated (M. Easton pers comm). Together these three Exhibition Gardens studies should provide a comprehensive heritage study of the Exhibition Gardens.29

Level of Knowledge – for Places

The main impression from the project audit is the overwhelming paucity of information for individual places and the almost complete absence of information for making management decisions. The audit suggests that there are less than 20 places that have adequate (but by no means complete) information for management, and at least four of these places are outside Wellington Park proper. In other words, less than 4% of identified places have adequate management information. It should also be noted that of the 25 places with probable or potential state level or potentially higher

29 It should be noted that an initial historical review and an historical and landscape values assessment (Sheridan 2004) was carried out on a volunteer basis because of concerns that the values of the Exhibition Gardens had not been adequately addressed by management or the developer (in the EIA) in relation to the Springs hotel development EIA.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Wellington Park Historic Heritage Inventory & Audit Project Report McConnell & Scripps (Sept 2005) - Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust

level significance, only one place (the Mountain Water Supply System) has adequate information for management.

It is also worth noting here that at the start of the present project the only historic heritage information for Wellington Park was a list of 108 historic heritage places, some of which are outside the Park (WPMT 1996). The data for these places was minimal30 and 22 sites had no information. The only place that had a significance assessment or management advice was the Mountain Water Supply System (which had a Conservation Management Plan prepared in 1994 by Murray & Nieberler). The present project has therefore increased the knowledge of the number of places in Wellington Park by around 400%. It has also increased the knowledge of individual places considerably, contributing preliminary historical and/or fabric information to an additional 137 identified places in Wellington Park (ie, c.35% of identified places now have some place record compared to 4% prior to the present project).

The above indicates that there is an urgent priority to upgrade the level of information for the identified places in Wellington Park. The project suggests that the priority is for places of high level (ie, state or higher) significance and those which are in high use areas or in areas likely to be subject to development pressure and which are consequently at risk of loss of cultural significance from use or development. The previous lack of field survey, and of inspection of the identified places, points to the urgent research need as being ground truthing of known sites and the areas identified as having relatively high potential for historic heritage places.

Gaps - Spatial

Although Wellington Park as a whole could be considered to have had inadequate historic heritage research, there are some specific identifiable spatial gaps.

Overall both the GCC and PWS managed areas can be considered to have had effectively no previous historic heritage study (other than for the Merton area). Although these areas are not likely to have high densities of historic heritage places, there are likely to be more places than identified to date, particularly earlier places.31 These two areas therefore require whole area studies which should include historical background research to locate and assess places, oral interviews with local informants to develop this knowledge, targeted field survey to identify heritage, and documentation of all identified places in these areas (particularly the higher significance places). As there are few areas which appear to have had focussed historical use, only a low density and overall number of places are likely to occur and this means that full area heritage surveys are unlikely to be productive. The most productive approach to field survey in these areas is considered to be targeting areas of assessed high potential (eg, Montrose Trail area, Upper Merton, Myrtle Forest Reserve or the full Myrtle Forest - Fairy Glen fringe), the Gum Top Area, and the central plateau peaks area – refer Figure 2) and to also carry out some random survey in other environments. An alternative would be to start initially with focussed heritage studies of the smaller assessed high sensitivity areas and complete full area studies (which incorporate the smaller area studies) at a later stage.

Although the HCC managed area also has not had any comprehensive area studies undertaken there is a better level of heritage knowledge for the area (probably because it has a longer history, is a better used area and hence of more interest and better known). Since the historic research and oral informant research undertaken and collated by the present project has succeeded in achieving what a full area study would do at this level, it is probable that the majority of historic heritage places that

30 Refer footnote 28 31 For example the places we know about for these areas are mainly derived from oral information hence mostly date from World War I and later. This is particularly the case for the sawmilling places.


exist in the area have now been identified and there is likely to be little merit in carrying out a full assessment of the whole area. What is apparent from the inventory and audit is that there are a small number of areas where historical use (including very early historical use) has been concentrated, yet which have incomplete identification of places, confusion about identified places, and contain identified places for which there is absolutely no information (including location).

Within the HCC managed area, these areas are the Pinnacle area, the Big Bend area, the Junction Cabin area, the Brushy Creek-Myrtle Gully area (below the Junction Cabin area and which has numerous huts, tracks and some known logging use), the Springs, the Hobart Rivulet area (area below the Springs area which also had historic tracks, huts and logging) and the Fern Tree area. The location of these areas is shown in Figure 2 and on the two large scale maps that accompany this report.

The above areas which are considered to be of very high potential sensitivity and very high potential significance (given their very early (ie, late 1700s to mid 1800s) and intensive use), hence a priority for further heritage studies, are the Pinnacle area, the Springs area and the Junction Cabin area.32 The most useful heritage study approach for these HCC areas of sensitivity is considered to be a detailed on-ground survey with site documentation and place targeted follow-up historical and oral informant research to interpret and help in the significance assessment of the identified places in these areas. Because of the lack of information generally for places already identified in these areas, the studies should include gap filling place documentation and background research for these places.

Gaps - Thematic

The main thematic gap is the lack of assessment of the landscape values of Wellington Park. The present project has identified a number of natural landscape features of known and probable social value, however there has never been an assessment of the landscape values. This is seen as a serious deficiency, in particular from a management policy, interpretative and celebratory perspective, as many parts of Wellington Park, including Mt Wellington, have immense visual and aesthetic importance for the broader community, 'evoking a range of personal responses linked into the psyche of the community of southern Tasmania who live in its shadow' (WPMP, 1977, p93). A study of the landscape values of Wellington Park, in particular the eastern half of the Park, is therefore seen as being of very high priority. The term 'landscape values' is used here to refer to landscape features and areas that have (or potentially have) cultural significance.33

Although, no historic theme is considered to have been well studied in Wellington Park, the work that has been undertaken to date does provide some insight into a number of the key themes that apply and their historical context, for example exploration and mapping, recreational hut construction and use, recreational track construction and use, infrastructure development and agriculturally based settlement and use. Other themes such as water harvesting, the timber industry, mining & quarrying, Depression period use and early 19th century (Hobart based) use are very poorly understood, while hunting and snaring and the use of convicts and other conscripted labour are themes for which no real information has been generated to date.

Our understanding about these themes is also lacking in relation to the historic physical evidence. The extent to which this is the case is something of an unknown unknown, because until all places within a theme can be identified from historical information (ie, the universe of possible places), it is not possible to determine how well the identified places of a particular thematic type represent that

32 Note – the Springs and Pinnacle areas of sensitivity are not necessarily the same area as the WPMP Springs and Pinnacle management zones. 33 The term 'cultural landscape' is not used here as Wellington Park has a range of landscape values not only cultural landscape values.


theme. Table 2 goes some way towards linking the range of places identified with the different themes that apply and, when combined with the current historical understanding of Wellington Park, it intuitively indicates that a high percentage of places associated with recreational hut and track construction and use, other recreation and tourism, water harvesting, and agricultural settlement within the Park have been identified. However, when considered in conjunction with the audit, it is clear that our actual knowledge about these identified places is very poor, hence our real level of knowledge about the historic heritage related to the various themes is poor.

Except for the landscape values study, the spatial gap filling heritage research needs (see above) are seen as being of a higher priority for management than research to fill the thematic gaps. While a good understanding of the historic themes for Wellington Park is very important contextual information (it is important for assessing the significance of places, determining management policy and for interpretative purposes), it is less immediately useful for heritage protection and management than place information. A potentially useful approach to acquiring this data may be through student research projects and other volunteer or partly supported research projects by interested community members.


Part 3

HERITAGE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS


35

3.1 MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS APPROACH

Scope of Management Assessment

The scope of the management assessment was set essentially by the Project Brief, which required Stage 2 of the project to – 1. Based upon the inventory and audit phases, recommend sites and/or areas that, on current

knowledge, are suitable for designation as heritage sites/precincts (in the context of the WPMP) within the Park, and for listing on relevant external heritage lists and registers.

2. Recommend any appropriate urgent/immediate heritage issues and management recommendations for all identified heritage resources, and identify any conflicts that exist or may arise with actions contained in other Park management strategies.

3. Identify a suitable management approach to the old Merton township, particularly as it relates to the management of fire and introduced species within the area.

4. Recommend any specific and/or thematic interpretation opportunities related to cultural heritage resources within the Park.

5. Provide recommendations for the future education opportunities of all management stakeholders both within and outside of the Park, regarding the conservation and management of cultural heritage.

6. Identify further educational or research opportunities relating to cultural heritage activities within the Park.

The management assessment has addressed these requirements, and has also evaluated and provided advice in relation to other key issues for historic heritage management raised through the audit and the project consultation.

Management Assessment Method

The management assessment is based on the findings of the inventory and audit components of the present project, community and management agency consultation, and a review of the current framework and processes for managing the historic heritage of Wellington Park which included evaluation of relevant planning and management documents for Wellington Park (refer Volume 2, Section 3).

The way in which the management assessment has been carried out is outlined below.

Understanding the Framework and Issues The review of the current management and planning framework was achieved through –

reviewing the Wellington Park Management Plan (1997) and proposed changes (WPMT 2005);

reviewing subsidiary plans for Wellington Park; reviewing the current strategies and other strategic advisory documents (eg, Design &

Infrastructure Manual); reviewing existing historic heritage management policy for individual sites in the Park;34

34 The only advice of this type other than that contained in the Wellington Park plans and strategies is the Pipeline Track CMP.


36

a Management Evaluation Meeting; and additional discussion with agency staff, in particular Michael Easton (Manager, WPMT) for

specific information and clarification.

An understanding of the issues was achieved through – assessing the current framework and framework documents in the light of the Australia

ICOMOS (1999) Burra Charter guidelines, the accepted standard for historic heritage management in Australia;

a review of other relevant heritage reports, in particular the recent review of HCC bushland management of historic heritage (McConnell 2003) prepared as background for the development of a Bushland Strategy for the Hobart Municipality;

assessment of the current information for historic heritage for Wellington Park obtained through Stage 1 of the present project (ie, the inventory and audit)

issues raised through the Management Evaluation Meeting; and issues raised through the broader community and other stakeholder consultation.

The community consultation was not comprehensive, but was broad, including relevant state and local government agencies, relevant heritage and area managers within the land management agencies with responsibility for Wellington Park, the Wellington Park Management Trust, relevant special interest organisations (eg, local historical societies and recreational groups), local community associations, and other potentially interested community groups, primarily local Landcare and Bushcare groups. Consultation with these generally comprised a letter at the start of the project to introduce the project and asking for feedback and to indicate interest in follow-up consultation. Follow-up consultation was undertaken where there was an interest in doing so. The consultation approach and a summary of comments are provided in Appendix 3.

A Management Evaluation Meeting was held in late June 2005 and was attended by staff of the WPMT, the HCC, the GCC, the PWS and Hobart Water. The staff who attended were those with responsibility for cultural heritage management or with a responsibility for the management of natural and other assets within Wellington Park. As the title of the meeting suggests, the meeting was specifically to look at the existing management arrangements for the historic heritage of the Park. The meeting explored the strengths and weaknesses of current management and opportunities for improved management. The meeting and its findings are also summarised in Appendix 3.

The analysis of the framework documents was a qualitative assessment that focussed on how well the documents provided for the management of historic heritage and the identification of conflicts or potential conflicts in the management requirements. The benchmark used was essentially the objectives and overarching policy for historic heritage in the Wellington Park Management Plan, the Burra Charter guidelines, and the general policy contained in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the LUPAA 1993 "to conserve those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value". The results of this analysis are summarised in Volume 2, Section 3.

Analysis of Findings The heritage management analysis can be considered as providing contextual advice in relation to the management of historic cultural heritage in Wellington Park. Specific recommendations and advice for improving management which arise from the analysis are presented in Section 4.1.

The assessment was based on the analysis of the management framework and issues, was also qualitative. It was also influenced by the Principal Consultant's interest and previous experience in cultural heritage management in essentially natural environments, including the development of systems for the heritage management of Tasmanian and Victorian forests. The assessment has therefore taken an essentially systems and process oriented approach to assessing the management of


37

the historic heritage, taking into account the situation of the historic heritage management within a broader multiple-use management context.

The analysis (documented in Section 3.2) is not comprehensive. Instead it has focussed on the key and framework issues that were identified. This appeared to be the most useful focus given that there has to date been no active program for historic heritage management in Wellington Park.

Provision of Management Advice

The advice provided (refer Section 4.1) reflects the management analysis focus and is consequently focussed on addressing the key identified issues and establishing an effective framework (including the heritage knowledge base) for management. In the view of the project to do otherwise is like trying to run before one can walk.

The advice provided also includes the relative priority/timing for implementing the recommendations (refer Section 4.2).

The absence of an established historic heritage management program has meant that effective policy, protocol, processes and procedures need to be established in a vacuum, hence it has been difficult for the project to provide concrete detailed recommendations for these without more discussion and analysis. Advice is however provided as to how this area may be progressed. The project has also been unable to provide specific advice in relation to specific sites and precincts, mainly because of the inadequacy of the place information for almost all historic heritage in Wellington Park. For the same reason no recommendations have been made in relation to nominating sites or precincts to external registers or lists.35 This will need to be done on an ongoing basis as sites and precincts are documented and assessed.

Although the management of the old Upper Merton township has been considered as part of the project, the management requirements for this area have been assessed separately and the advice in relation to this has been provided as separate report (McConnell & Scripps, 2005).

35 As required by the Project Brief, all identified sites that have reasonably accurately known locations will be entered on the Tasmanian Historical Places Inventory.


38

3.2 KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Analysis of the present project findings and consideration of the management context for Wellington Park point to three key factors which need to be considered in the management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park. These three factors are that the historic heritage –

is invisible is unknown, and exists in a complex context.

The invisibility of heritage and the lack of heritage information have strongly influenced how historic heritage has been managed in the past, and all three factors will significantly affect how the heritage is managed in the future, including the priorities for management and other recommendations of this report. The three factors should therefore be regarded as the key issues for historic heritage management for Wellington Park. The issues and implications are outlined below.

This section and Section 3.3 assume an understanding of the current framework for historic heritage management in Wellington Park.

Issue 1 – An Invisible Heritage

In a recent review of management issues for historic heritage in Hobart's bushland (McConnell 2003), it was found that the invisibility of heritage in bushland areas was a major issue. The review concluded –

"there is an issue with the invisibility of a range of types of historic heritage which has implications for what is identified and what is managed. It is in part the 'if you can't see it, it doesn't exist' syndrome, and has lead to ruins and archaeological sites being largely ignored in both listing and day to day management, although these are a major type of heritage place in bushland. The traditional focus in urban areas on built heritage in Hobart has also meant that the settings of many buildings (which may include bushland areas), which may be as important (if not more important) than the buildings is frequently not considered (in listing and protection)" (McConnell 2003, 24).

The conclusion of the present project is that this is very much the case for Wellington Park which has a similar, dominantly archaeological style, historic heritage as found in other bushland areas.

This syndrome appears to result from the fact that the focus of the majority of management agencies is oriented towards the management of built heritage in an intensive use, urban context, which is very different to the largely archaeological sites of bushland areas and the multiple values conservation, primary objectives of reserved natural areas. The invisibility factor is also likely to be at work, as it is very much the case that in areas that are essentially natural areas, the focus has traditionally been on the visible natural elements – the flora and fauna – and cultural heritage has fitted in awkwardly or not at all – a poor cousin to the natural values. In addition, there seems to be a tendency for greater public advocacy in relation to the use of places, rather than in relation to ensuring the values of places per se are being well managed, which assists in maintaining the invisibility of the cultural heritage.

What are the implications of an invisible heritage? Put simply – there is no management of the historic heritage. As a consequence of invisibility, management decisions are continually being made that ignore needs for historic heritage conservation and in many cases this will lead to direct, adverse, sometimes major, impacts on historic heritage. This situation will continue indefinitely, as


39

unless there is intervention, this systemic invisibility is self perpetuating. In the project's view it is not be possible to meet the goal of the WPMP to 'retain the essential cultural characteristics of the Park' or to meet the four key objectives for historic heritage management' with the current level of historic heritage invisibility in the Wellington Park context.

In relation to Wellington Park, the areas where this invisibility is most obvious is in the management and strategic planning documents (refer Volume 2, Section 3) where historic heritage is generally treated in a very summary way (with little development from the WPMP), with a number of the documents failing to identify historic heritage values, providing no management comment in relation to historic heritage, or containing prescriptions and recommendations that are likely to have an adverse affect on historic heritage. The invisibility is also evident in the lack of established processes for managing heritage data and evaluating the impacts of proposed developments on historic heritage. A recent example of how this invisibility manifests itself is the process to manage risk to visitors at Sphinx Rock where the strong negative public response to the options provided for public comment (various styles of viewing platform which would restrict the users experience and visual appreciation of the Rock) surprised the management agency involved. This was to a large extent a reaction to the failure of the process to consider Sphinx Rock specifically as historic heritage (a major value of which is its social value) and to ensure the solution avoided or minimised loss of heritage significance or acknowledged the need to compromise the cultural significance and presented clear arguments for this. Not only this, but the proposed solutions failed to address the policy and a number of the design principles for historic heritage in the Wellington Park Design & Infrastructure Manual 2004.

Invisibility should not be confused with incompetence or deliberate inaction. Where heritage is invisible, it will be difficult to achieve good management even with the best will in the world or competent staff. The first level of intervention required to improve heritage management is to recognise that there is heritage that needs to be considered and to be aware of the principles for good heritage management. The next step is to develop mechanisms to ensure the heritage is adequately considered where relevant.

Issue 2 – An Unknown Heritage

The audit also clearly shows that the knowledge base for managing historic heritage has been, and still is, extremely limited. This lack of place data was identified as a key issue in the 1991 Working Group Report (HCC 1991, 41) which noted the "almost complete lack of knowledge and/or systematic research as to the relative significance of the various archaeological sites and features in the Park". This was still the case when the 1997 WPMP was completed, and is still the situation today, 15 years later, as this present project has shown. The lack of place information was also seen as a key issue in the project consultation, with one comment being 'the biggest issue is not knowing what heritage is there'. The present project has improved our knowledge of the number of historic heritage places in Wellington Park, but has not added appreciably to the level of information for each place. The actual situation for Wellington Park at present (based on the present project audit) is that – the inventory work of the current project has improved the historic heritage place knowledge

base by between 400% and 450%, even with no on-ground survey being undertaken, and there is still likely to be more historic heritage to be located in the Park; and

of the 407 places assessed, there are less than 20 places (ie, less than 4% of identified places) that have adequate, but by no means complete, information for management, and only one place with state level or potentially higher level significance (the Mountain Water Supply System) that has adequate information for management.


40

Since the process for making decisions about heritage places requires a policy which is based on the cultural significance of the place (as well as other factors), which in turn is based on an understanding of the history, physical evidence, setting, meaning and associations of the place, there is clearly a major issue for making management decisions for nearly all the heritage sites of Wellington Park. In essence this data deficiency means that each time there is a management decision which will affect a site or precinct in Wellington Park, it will be necessary to first research, inspect, document and assess the site or precinct, using heritage expertise. The same conclusion was also reached by the 1996 inventory which stated that for all historic heritage sites other than the Pipeline Track, "No action should be taken which may diminish their potential value until they can be properly assessed" (WPMT 1996, 128).

Although the present project has improved our knowledge about what historic heritage is located within Wellington Park, it cannot be assumed that because heritage has not been identified to date in a particular area of Wellington Park that there is in reality no heritage in that area. The project guesstimate of the number of historic heritage places that are as yet unidentified is around 20-25% of the total number of places that occur in the Park (ie, a hundred or more). Ideally then, if the goal and objectives for historic heritage in the WPMP are to be met, all works in all areas will need to be preceded by on-ground site survey until the necessary studies to address the spatial gaps in the historic heritage information are carried out. This issue was recognised as early as 1991 in the Working Group Report which noted that "As a result of the lack of comprehensive data about past and present use ... All developments and expansion of current opportunities will need to be thoroughly investigated before any recommendation can be made" (HCC 1991, 41) and was picked up in the WPMP, but continues to be an issue (eg, it identified as an issue in the present project Management Evaluation meeting).

This paucity of historic heritage information is also the situation for most bushland areas of Hobart (McConnell 2003) and appears to arise from the fact that the focus of the majority of management agencies are oriented towards the management of built heritage, which means that their expertise, focus and energy is away from bushland areas, including Wellington Park, and is instead on the urban issues and heritage. The heritage invisibility factor (see above) is also likely to be at work, with cultural heritage being largely ignored while perceived higher priority issues such as the identification and development of other assets (eg, recreational) or other management needs (eg, fire management) receive most attention.

Issue 3 – A Complex Context

Wellington Park is unusual in being a very large area of reserved public land on the fringe of a major population centre. While this is the case for a few other places (eg, for the National Parks at the north and south ends of Sydney), Wellington Park has the distinction of also being the dominant landscape, the main area of bushland, and a major recreational destination for the residents of greater Hobart and for large numbers of its visitors. This means that the Park as a whole or in part is of considerable public interest at a range of levels, and any changes to the Park will be of interest and probable concern to the public, especially the local community. This is shown in the history of outcry in the last 100 years over major developments, for example an aerial cableway to the summit of Mt Wellington (several proposals since the early 1900s), the development of a Springs Hotel (in the early 1900s and recently), and the construction of the Pinnacle Road (termed Ogilvie's Scar by its many detractors).


41

This issue was recognised in the 1991 Working Group report for the creation of Wellington Park which stated –

"The success of any venture for Mountain Park depends on how well it has been researched and whether it represents the majority of the citizens expectations. Because of the proximity to Hobart many people have strong opinions of what they would like to see developed. Hence it will be a massive public relations exercise." (HCC 1991, 44).

Another layer of complexity, and one highly relevant to the management of the historic heritage, is that the last two hundred years of human use, particularly on the east side of the Range, has left a legacy of a considerable amount of historic heritage, much of which is highly significant and complex (eg, the Mountain Water Supply System, the Springs area, and the track and hut complex which extends over a large distance) and has strong social values).

Because this heritage is on the back doorstep of greater Hobart, the public have a major attachment to it for a range of reasons: It has considerable social value (meanings and associations) to the local community because many residents of greater Hobart and communities on its other sides have been involved directly or via family members in the construction and/or use of these heritage places. Also, many value it as a recreational resource, for its aesthetic values, or simply for representing a part of the history of Hobart and the European development of Hobart and Tasmania.

The strong level of social valuing and attachment means that the community will have a strong interest in how heritage sites and precincts are managed (and this is likely to manifest in reaction rather than proaction for a range of reasons) and will want to have involvement in the management decisions that are made about these places. Although previously not well recognised as a part of land management, heritage management guidelines such as the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter recognise people's right to be involved in making management decisions about heritage places and that community values (social, aesthetic and spiritual values) are equally important components of cultural significance as the historical and scientific values. The strong degree of public attachment to Mt Wellington and Wellington Park and the consequent need for public involvement in decision making is also recognised in the WPMP. However, how this actually translates into on-ground decision making with public involvement is less well developed.

The 200 year focus on Mt Wellington as a resource for Hobart, primarily for water, timber and recreation, and to a lesser extent for uses such as possum hunting, scientific research, to meet human needs for solitude, as an escape from the city environment and for the beauty of views and the bushland, adds another layer to the complexity of managing Wellington Park – that of managing for important and entrenched multiple-uses. Achieving good multiple-use land management is still today a difficult goal to achieve, and an art that requires considerably more development. Because it adds to the complexity of management and often requires the resolution of conflicting management needs, it takes much more time and resources to manage, as well as good strategic approaches to management.

Not only this, but Wellington Park has an extremely unusual management structure which comprises a management body that has no land ownership and few staff, and which is reliant on the State government for funds and on not one, but three, owner agencies to provide whatever other support and expertise is required. The complex structure adds to the complexity of planning, resourcing and decision making, and increases the time required to complete management tasks because it is a complex system to negotiate. Given this, the Wellington Park Management Plan is an extremely important document for providing overarching guidance on management for the Park, but cannot compensate fully for this complexity. This complex management and administrative structure provides an environment that can engender confusion and the taking of short cuts which are not necessarily in the best interests of management, and make it difficult to address invisibility issues. A number of these issues were foreshadowed by the HCC (1991) Wellington Park Working Group, and


42

some have been picked up and addressed as far as is possible in the Wellington Park Management Plan.

It is clear from the above that Wellington Park and its management are extremely complex. In fact, the Park is possibly one of the largest, most complex areas of reserved land in Australia to manage.36 This complexity has time, human and monetary resource implications – in essence it will require more of these to do the job well (ie, to resolve conflicting needs, negotiate the layered structure, and ensure adequate public involvement). Effective management will also require careful consideration of where resources are located and how they are used, clear delineation of responsibilities, and clear communicated processes.

36 Other Australian parallels in terms of layers of complexity, especially multiple use management and strong community attachments, may be Kakadu National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park in the Northern Territory and the Blue Mountains, Royal and Kuringai Chase National Parks near Sydney.


43

3.3 OTHER ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES

3.3.1 Heritage Information Issues

The following discussion relates to heritage information issues as this was an area the audit was asked to specifically consider and it is highly relevant to two of the three key management issues identified – the lack of historic heritage information and the invisibility of historic heritage in Wellington Park.

An Historic Heritage Information Base for Management

The lack of historic heritage information for Wellington Park is discussed in Part 2 of this report, and the issue this creates for management is summarised in Section 3.2 above. This section briefly explores what heritage information is required and how this might be most effectively obtained for Wellington Park. It is based on the premise that all actions at a historic heritage place should be based on studies to understand the place and which should include analysis of physical, documentary, oral and other evidence, drawing on appropriate knowledge, skills and disciplines (this reflects Articles 3, 4, 6 & 26 of the Burra Charter).

In relation to Wellington Park, good heritage information is that which provides – 1. expert data on the history, physical evidence, condition and cultural significance of

individual sites (and precincts) within the Park; 2. a level of confidence that most potential heritage has been identified across the Park; and 3. a level of confidence that we understand and have identified the heritage relating to most

historical types of use (themes) that have occurred in the Park.

The audit findings suggests that all three areas need to be addressed, and that the priorities are – strategic research to improve the knowledge of the heritage in the different parts of the Park, to improve the data for particular individual places which have ongoing management

requirements and/or unresolved issues, and on-ground survey (as the historic heritage information to date is mainly derived from remote

sources (ie, documentary and oral sources)).

Strategic research needs have been identified in the audit analysis (refer Section 2.2). In essence a hierarchy of approaches has been advocated which gives priority to areas which will be the subject of major development or which potentially have high concentrations of heritage sites and features, with highest priority going to places which are of both types and have the potential to have historically very significant sites and features. The next level of priority is considered to be those areas of the Park that have some heritage potential, but which have had almost no previous heritage investigation. In most cases the priority tasks to be undertaken in priority areas are on-ground survey for heritage and in-field documentation of identified heritage.

Similar criteria can be usefully used to prioritise the research of known sites to provide adequate site information for management. Using these criteria sites and features that should have highest priority


44

would include37 –

Wragge's Summit Observatory Rangers House (the Springs) Woods House (the Springs) Springs Hotel Fern Tree Bower Silver Falls Sphinx Rock the Pinnacle Pinnacle Road

the two Lady Franklin shelter sites Organ Pipes Milles Track & 1831 Diversion Jefferys Track Wellington Falls Track Icehouse Complex & Icehouse Track Rivulet Track/Woods Track New Town Track the New Town Way

Not all sites will require a major site documentation and assessment project. For example relatively simple sites such as hut ruins are relatively simple sites and will share the same social values and other aspects of significance with a number of other similar sites, and will have similar management requirements. Sites such as these should only need a relatively basic field inspection and recording, the assessment should be relatively straightforward, and the management policy is likely to be brief. For these types of places a more strategic and time and cost effective approach than undertaking a large number of discrete repetitive studies would be to research a number of sites in a related group (eg, all huts of a period, or in a single area, of a certain type) as one study. This could be effectively done for huts, the more minor walking tracks, the 19th century sawmills, and for the historically related Hutchinson's campsites, or all survey and exploration sites.

As the knowledge base will take some time to significantly improve, it is important that there are interim measures to facilitate heritage protection. These are discussed in 'Urgent & Immediate Heritage Issues' below.

Site & Precinct Identification

Since the WPMP provides for the protection of identified historic heritage primarily through protective mechanisms for heritage 'sites' and 'precincts', it is clearly important to understand what heritage places are 'sites' or 'precincts', and determine which identified historic heritage belongs to one of these categories of heritage place.38

There is no definition of a heritage site or precinct in the WPMP, possibly because these are relatively common terms in cultural heritage management. It is useful therefore to explore briefly what heritage 'sites' and 'precinct's are here. The generic term used for a historic heritage entity in both the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 is 'place'. Sites and precincts are simply types of 'place', and both sites and precincts are recognised types of historic heritage 'place' under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995. No definition of site or precinct however is given in the Act or Burra Charter. In the absence of formal definitions, some working definitions are provided in the Text Box on the next page.

Given that it is only sites and precincts that are provided for in the management of Wellington Park under the WPMP, the present project has constructed the project inventory and database to list individual sites (including site complexes) and precincts. No precincts however have yet been recognised, including by the present project. The present project has however recognised areas of historic heritage potential that may be precincts, but which need further research to positively

37 The Exhibition Gardens is not included in this list as it is currently being investigated in detail, and the Mountain Water Supply system is also not included as it has been adequately (although not comprehensively) researched. 38 The WPMP does not distinguish between 'sites' and 'precincts' in terms of how they are managed.


45

Defining Sites & Precincts The term 'site' is usually used to denote objects, structures and other features of an historic nature in a physical location, usually related to where the object, structure or other feature was established and/or used. For example a boiler located where it was used to power a sawmill, together with its location, is a site. It should be noted that a site may have no physical evidence (tangible values) and may simply be the location of an historic event or be a place that has other strong meanings and associations for people (ie, aesthetic, social or spiritual values). Individual sites are usually recognised as single places which have a single historical association (use, association with an important event or individual). Sites do not have to belong to a single period of time, and sites frequently have physical evidence, meanings and associations that belong to a range of periods. For example two adjacent huts built and owned by different people are normally recognised as two sites, but two adjacent huts or a hut and summerhouse in the same area built and/or used by the same people may be recognised as one site. The site would normally include other related historic features in the area, for example modified trees, wells, plantings, indoor and outdoor furniture. Sites may be simple or complex, and where there are a number of sites and features that are closely related (usually historically) the term generally used is 'site complex'. A simple site may be one object or feature, or even an area with only archaeological material (artefacts or sub-surface deposits). The term 'site' is commonly used for more archaeological type heritage, but is not commonly used in the built and urban heritage context, where 'place' is the more common general term.

The term 'precinct' tends to be used for an area of land that contains historic heritage values, either a dense cluster of sites (and features) or a set of sites (and features) that occur in a definable single area and that have some commonality (for example they may all be sites that relate to a single theme, or a single period of development, or be all the heritage places in a recognised, definable area (eg, a street)). It is possible, but not common, for a precinct to be only a natural feature with cultural significance or to be an area that has only intangible values. Precincts are generally not the same as a 'cultural landscape'. Cultural landscapes are generally large areas of land which have a suite of different type of heritage which are historically related (by location, theme or event) and areas in which the landscape elements are an important heritage component. These are not requirements of precincts, and precincts are generally smaller areas than cultural landscapes. This set of definitions has been developed by the project and are based on standard practise in Australia.

identify as precincts and to define confidently. These areas have been termed 'proto-precincts' and are listed as such in the inventory and database. They are seen as being of high priority for research. Proto-precincts recognised in this study are the Springs area, the Pinnacle area, the Junction Cabin area, Upper Merton, the Montrose Trail area and the Myrtle Forest area (refer Figure 2 and the accompany larger scale maps).

The Mountain Water Supply System and the Icehouses Complex are considered to be site complexes rather than precincts because they both comprise sets of closely related elements and have many elements, but these elements are not necessarily closely physically related. Site complexes should be treated as sites (and are treated as such in the project audit).Managing with Low Levels of Information

As discussed above, managing without comprehensive heritage information is a critical issue for land managers, particularly where there is considerable identified heritage and high potential for more to be identified. Measures to improve the heritage knowledge base have been discussed above, but even with a reasonably well funded program to improve the heritage knowledge it will still take time to develop the knowledge base. It is therefore important to consider what can be done in the interim to improve protection for historic heritage while not hindering other areas of management. This needs to be considered in relation to spatial information gaps and inadequate data for identified heritage.

Managing for Spatial Data Gaps Where values are managed on the basis of values lists (as per the WPMP policy and a performance based model of development) there is a tendency to assume that if no values have been identified for an area, then there are no heritage values in that area. Given the current level of identification of resources in Wellington Park this is an exceedingly dangerous assumption in relation to historic heritage. There is therefore a need when making decisions about the use and development of any


46

area to be aware of the limited amount of heritage identification that has occurred, and that heritage may in fact be present and/or the place may have heritage value.

There is a range of ways of addressing this issue. The highest level of protection is offered by requiring comprehensive heritage surveys and assessments to be undertaken prior to any decision making (preferably in the planning stages) for any new use or development of an area. This can be time consuming and expensive and, since in many areas there will be no heritage values, prove to have been unnecessary. A commonly used alternative approach is to assess the potential or sensitivity for heritage values to occur based on an understanding of the history of use of the area, to zone the area in question into areas of different levels of heritage sensitivity, and to attach appropriate prescriptions for heritage protection to the different zones. A minimalist approach, but one which is better than ignoring potential heritage values, is to get a desktop type professional assessment of heritage potential for any area of new development or use (which is in effect a mini-sensitivity zoning assessment) and then carry out the necessary research based on the desktop advice.

At this stage all parts of Wellington Park should be considered as inadequately assessed and hence as requiring further assessment prior to any new use or development. Adoption of the above strategies, singly or combined, will be required for historic heritage protection. The WPMT should determine what approach they wish to take in relation to this issue, and develop policy and protocols to ensure the approach is known and can be followed.

Managing for Limited Site Data As the audit has shown there is inadequate information for managing all but a handful of the sites in Wellington Park, there will also be a need develop interim compensatory mechanisms for heritage protection where any new use or development is being proposed in the ara of any heritage site (other than those for which there is currently developed management policy).

Again there is a need for management protocols that give guidance on what to do for the places that have limited information where there is to be intervention. The WPMP does this for major works by requiring a conservation policy to be prepared prior to decisions regarding 'major works, use removal or interpretation'. There also needs to be a policy and protocols for minor works.

Management of Heritage Information

As well as being an essential tool for management, the Burra Charter also has a guideline that records relating to the history and conservation of a place should be made and placed in a permanent archive, and made publicly available (subject to requirements for security, privacy and cultural sensitivities) (Burra Charter, Articles 31 & 32).

Until the present project, the heritage data used for management was contained in a c.12 page appendix to the 1996 Wellington Park Values, Use & Management Inventory (WPMT 1996) which was publicly accessible. While this might be an adequate approach where there is only limited information (as has been the case to date), it has a number of deficiencies for long term heritage management (eg, it cannot be easily updated, it lacks spatial (location and extent) information and it does not allow for tracking management intervention). McConnell (2003) noted an associated issue in bushland more generally – the difficulty of accessing information because it is not centralised into one location or computerised. She sees this as being 'extremely problematic for assessing the nature and extent of historic heritage generally, and for tracking management and providing advice to the public and Council staff, in particular works crews and planners' (McConnell 2003, 23).

There is clearly a need then for an improved data management system for Wellington Park, particularly given the large increase in the number of identified sites as a result of this project, and the likely significant increase in information for the different sites as further research is undertaken.


47

At present heritage information management ideally requires a three tier approach – 1. a computer site based database, 2. a spatial mapping capacity, and 3. ability to store hard copy site information and heritage reports (for reference purposes).

Hard copy site based records and site distribution/location maps only are adequate, but a computerised database is preferable as it allows for ease of updating records and greater flexibility in the use of the data, and greater accessibility to the records (all of which is likely to assist management). Where the heritage is being managed in a multiple value and/or use context, then different values sets can be stored together and the data can be linked to a GIS system, with each value being a separate layer. This allows overlaying of different values and proposed uses to identify high sensitivity areas and potential management conflicts. A hard copy database is also recommended as it is generally not within the capacity of managing agencies to store all records (eg, maps, archival documents and photographs, full site reports) electronically, and it is often not easy to use this type of information electronically.

Elements of the above type of system already exist. The present project has set up the site database so that it can be used as an electronic 'site & precinct' database, and has also started a hard copy system by creating separate folders for all sites for which archival information (eg, photographs, maps, plans, newspaper and other published articles) was available. Given that all agencies with management responsibility for Wellington Park have a GIS capacity, then the spatial mapping system should be a GIS based system as this will allow for improved integrated values and use management. This approach was generally agreed to be the most appropriate at the project Management Evaluation Meeting, although it was also recommended that sites should also be listed on the Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory where they were not listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

How such a heritage data system should be managed is not so clear given the management structure for the park and the various roles and responsibilities and interests of the various management bodies. It is useful to have centralised management of the heritage information so that new heritage sites can be added and records updated as new information becomes available. It is also important to keep track of intervention at heritage places, an area for which there are not yet established processes in relation to Wellington Park (McConnell 2003). This centralised management can be the role of the heritage expertise within an organisation or the role of an information management section of an agency taking direction from the heritage managers. Whatever system is used, there should also be mechanisms to make relevant heritage data easily accessible to those who need it (including the heritage managers, planners, other managers, consultants and the public). The Hobart Walking Club (7/9/2005) also supports the need for a centralised database and suggested that it should be fully computerised and accessible on the one system.

There was a clear view at the Management Evaluation Meeting that the WPMT should be the central information management body to receive data, update the records and distribute updated data. The meeting however could not identify any logical centralised location for the hard copy data other than the WPMT, but it was acknowledged that there were human resource issues in relation to this option and the different land management agencies might prefer to hold the records that relate to their own area of management responsibility and there may be some merit in this. If a partitioned system is adopted then there are questions that need to be resolved such as whether all records are kept in the same format or each agency uses the system they currently use. This area appears to need more consideration before a decision can be made.

The management of heritage reports also appears to require more consideration. It is logical that the WPMT hold a set of all historic heritage reports for the park and that each land management agency has a copy of reports relevant to their area of responsibility and key Park-wide reports, but there are


48

issues about where the centralised repository should be physically located, including in relation to resourcing, accessibility, logical sites, and legal deposit obligations.

3.3.2 Framework Issues for Management

The following looks at other issues related to the framework for managing the historic cultural heritage of Wellington Park. The analysis is not comprehensive, but is designed to addresses the three key issues for management discussed above (Section 3.2) and other related issues for heritage management that have come to light through the project. The issues discussed in this section relate mainly to heritage management processes.

To provide important background, an overview of the framework for historic heritage management is provided in Appendix 2. This is based mainly on the Australia ICOMOS (1999) Burra Charter guidelines for cultural heritage conservation.

Improving the Active Management of the Historic Heritage

The following were identified as specific historic heritage management issues for Wellington Park through the project consultation.39 Similar issues were identified in both the general consultation and in the Management Evaluation Meeting.

General It was generally agreed by managers that there is no program of active, heritage conservation focussed management at present and there are no provisions for determining what is needed. The historic heritage management that exists is for 1. the Mountain Water Supply System (MWSS) which, although it has limited routine maintenance, does have a Conservation Management Plan which includes a works schedule and there is also the Hobart Water Standard Operating Procedures, and 2. the recent 'upgrading' of Radfords Monument. There was also an attempt to remove regrowth pine trees from some of the Upper Merton house sites, but in one case this resulted in a poor outcome as the work was not adequately supervised and the heritage values appear not to have been understood by those carrying out the work. There is also a program of management for the extant huts that are used for recreation, however this program is an asset management program and has not specifically considered heritage conservation needs.

Actions considered to be useful in addressing this general lack of heritage conservation action included –

formulation of direction/policy as to what should happen in respect of active management a consistent and prescribed approach to dealing with repairs and on-site operations incorporating historic heritage places with regular maintenance needs in asset registers training and education for all staff.

Information about the costs of different conservation options was also seen as being useful to plan conservation works and ensure there were resources for routine maintenance and other necessary work, and the comment was made that active conservation will require additional resources. Resourcing was not raised as an issue for heritage generally40, but it was noted that although the WPMP sets out the need to manage the whole spectrum of values in the Park, the land management

39 Issues relating to specific sites and site types area outlined in Section 3.3.3. 40 The project assumed from the consultation that resourcing was not raised as an issue because there was no awareness of the resourcing implications of improving historic heritage management and/or there was a view that what ever was done needed to be within the current level of resourcing.


49

agencies do not have the resources to manage at this level. It was also noted that there was an imbalance in availability of resources across the land management agencies.

Maintenance of Heritage Places There was specific comment abut the maintenance of historic heritage. There is a view held by agency staff and the community that routine maintenance generally was significantly reduced about 15-20 years ago, but that efforts are being made now to improve the levels of maintenance (this applies particularly, but not exclusively, to the HCC management area).

Maintaining the level of routine maintenance is extremely important for heritage with significant fabric, particularly for sites such as the MWSS. A lack of regular maintenance is likely to mean that considerably more resources will need to be employed at a later date for repair and catch-up maintenance, and a failure to adequately maintain fabric may in some cases result in irreparable damage or total destruction of the significant fabric or significant site elements.

The MWSS has relatively major routine maintenance requirements such as regular cleaning of gutters and culverts, other damp control, cleaning mosses and other vegetation off the sandstone structures, vegetation clearing from the site, root control, resurfacing of the Pipeline Track, and repair after incidental damage (flooding, tree falls, cap stone breakage). Most other identified sites have much lower level maintenance requirements. Unused sites such as tracks, huts and farms will require little more than routine control or removal of vegetation growing out of the site (eg, small trees from chimney butts and track formations or to prevent damage from adjacent tree fall), and sites that are being publicly presented are likely to require vegetation control (including for presentation), maintenance, hardening or other infrastructure, and possibly rubbish removal. The only sites that will require more active maintenance or repair are likely to be the other built structures that are significantly intact, primarily the extant stone huts.

Monitoring Heritage Condition The lack of monitoring of sites and their condition was raised a number of times as an issue. There was general agreement that there was no monitoring of cultural heritage values occurring at present, but that this was a necessary aspect of heritage management. Regular monitoring is particularly important for sites and areas that have new uses (eg, tracks which now allow bicycle use) or have or a high level of ongoing use (eg, the Pipeline Track).

Monitoring is an essential aspect of land or asset management generally (and is a recognised part of the Burra Charter process for heritage conservation) because it is the only way in which we can evaluate the success or failure of the management regime that is in place. Regular monitoring also allows for inadequacies and other issues to be recognised before significant negative impacts occur.

Suggestions made to improve the monitoring of heritage site condition included –

carrying out historic heritage monitoring in conjunction with, or as part of, existing monitoring (which is for walking tracks; PWS monitoring of human behaviour in the west part of Wellington Park and HW on-ground catchment management inspections) or periodic inspections (eg, post fire inspections);

development of community based monitoring programs (perhaps using groups such as the HWC or the New Norfolk Historical Society in some agreed capacity, by extending the work of Bushcare groups, or through more open programs such as an 'adopt- a-site' program);

including the historic heritage in agency asset registers (as registered assets have provision for regular monitoring/inspection).

There is a need to develop prescriptions and protocols in relation to this, and if community groups are used there may also be a need for related policy. In all cases where the monitoring is not undertaken by a heritage professional, training in heritage recognition and condition assessment will be needed for those carrying out the monitoring (and should be provided by the WPMT).


50

Integrating Cultural Heritage into Management & Managing Conflicting Uses

In a management context such as that of Wellington Park where there are a range of values and a range of uses that all need to be managed for, considering the historic heritage in isolation is unlikely to result in good management of the historic heritage and is likely to result in conflicts in management.

It is therefore necessary to integrate historic heritage into broader management. Given that the primary management objective for Wellington Park under the WPMP is natural and cultural values protection, and recreation/tourism where this is consistent with the other objectives, then it is necessary to have processes and mechanisms that allow the range of values for any area to be identified, and for recreational and tourism and other uses to be assessed in the context of the impacts they will have on these values. An important consideration in this regard is that uses should be compatible with values conservation, and developments or uses that require impact minimisation are incompatible and inappropriate.

Although integrated values management and various uses (ie, multiple use management) is a goal for many large areas of land, usually Crown land (State forests and National parks and other reserved areas), it is true to say that there are yet no highly satisfactory models for this. Elements of management systems that appear to have been useful in promoting better integrated management are integrated values information; management zoning that recognises the range of values; established, coordinated and integrated processes and structures for reviewing use and development proposals; and staff training in relation to values and their management. Also of importance is the need to ensure the range of values and uses are included equally (or in a way that reflects the management policy) in all assessment and planning, and recognition that management is a system rather than a set of isolated tasks.

It should also be noted in the context of this discussion that one of the key issues identified for all bushland management in Hobart (McConnell 2003), not just Wellington Park, was the paucity of management mechanisms suited to bushland historic heritage conservation. McConnell (2003, 22) noted that for bushland generally –

"At present the only established mechanism for managing the historic heritage appears to be through planning. There needs to be mechanisms to address the full range of management areas, and these need to be integrated with other natural values management where possible".

McConnell (2003) also identified issues in relation to in-house works and larger development impact assessments, specifically that processes for assessing impacts are failing to adequately protect historic heritage in relation to works. She noted a need for effective processes in respect of historic heritage impact assessments of all works, and in the case of major developments she advocated that the process also needed to be open and transparent. In general it is also preferable that the mechanisms developed are as resource effective as possible and where possible fit within existing structures and approaches. These were also considerations advocated by the Management Evaluation Meeting. Given the invisibility factor (refer Section 3.2), whatever processes are established will need to be promoted to ensure that they are used where required.

Policy & Process Approaches A review of the planning and strategic documents for Wellington Park indicates that there is very limited integrated management at this stage. Values are listed separately and there are no comprehensive GIS based or other mapping system that allows the range of values in one area to be considered. There is however a partial GIS system and there has been some attempt to recognise the cross-over of values (eg, the Walking Tracks database which lists known associated historic sites) which can be built on.


51

The Project Proposal Form process that is in place, while not being an integrative mechanism, does however allow for all values and potential management conflicts to be considered and mitigated, and is therefore an important management process. This, and a fuller environmental impact assessment process for larger projects/developments, are the two main mechanisms that exist in Wellington Park (and are provided for in the WPMP) to consider the impacts on the natural and cultural values and to provide integrated assessment.

The strategic documents, while acknowledging the need for values protection, are in general very weak at considering how this will be achieved, and two of the four strategic planning documents reviewed (refer Volume 2, Section 3) fail to make any recommendations in relation to historic heritage, but make a number of recommendations that are potentially inimical to historic heritage protection (and appear to unaware of this potential impact). An example of this is the Wellington Park Drinking Water Catchment Management Strategy 2002 which contains 115 actions to maintain good quality drinking water and, although the water supply system that is used is a heritage site itself, 36 actions (ie, 31% of actions) will potentially have a negative impact on the historic heritage values of the Park.41 It is also interesting to note that the strategic planning documents that exist for Wellington Park relate to uses and asset protection, and there are none to date that address values protection. This suggests that there is not only a lack of integration of values, but there is an imbalance in the treatment of values compared to uses.

There are similar issues with the existing Site Development Plans for Wellington Park. These plans provide only a brief outline of the natural and cultural values of the zones to which the plans apply and focus primarily on development design criteria. With respect to the historic heritage the treatment is extremely limited and all three plans fail to provide a comprehensive assessment of the values and fail to assess the significance of these on any recognised basis (eg, the Burra Charter). This is an inadequate basis for making recommendations for historic heritage protection (and this is reflected in the policy and prescriptions for historic heritage protection that are provided). Given that all three zones for which there are plans (ie, the Springs, the Pinnacle Zone and Myrtle Forest) are known from the present project to have historic heritage values, and in the case of the Springs and Pinnacle Zone to have an extremely high density of historic heritage, including historic heritage with very high cultural significance, this should be of concern.

At this stage it is difficult to see how the proposed 'performance based management system' for Wellington Park (refer revised WPMP) will assist the integrated management of Wellington Park. As well as the approach not yet having been implemented, it is a model generally used for local government where land is privately owned and there is a strong development focus. The authors are not aware of it having been previously used for land reserved primarily for natural and cultural values protection. It will be important therefore to trial the system and monitor its performance closely to ensure that it will meet the goal and objectives of for management of Wellington Park.

Given that one of the special management issues for Wellington Park is the high level of public interest in the Park and how it is managed (refer Section 3.2, Issue 3), then, as part of ensuring that all 'voices' are heard in any management decision, the community voice also needs to be heard. At present the community are involved at a number of levels including – various levels of community consultation for individual projects, seeking community comment on draft planning documents, and through a small number of working groups. In relation to historic heritage some level of community consultation is also generally undertaken for identifying and assessing heritage places. The WPMP sets the policy and objectives for this, but there appears to be no routine, established protocols and processes or specific guidelines in place for how and what community involvement should occur. More detailed guidelines would help ensure recognition of community values and better involvement

41 It should be noted that 15 of the actions may have a benefit to the historic heritage, but only if the historic heritage values are considered in implementing the actions.


52

of the community in decision making. Additional and alternative approaches that assist integrating the community voice also need to be considered.

In formulating recommended approaches and guidelines for community involvement it needs to be recognised that community consultation and involvement is generally on a volunteer basis, hence any soliciting of community involvement needs to be genuine, strategic and well thought out to make the most of community input and in order to avoid wasting people's time (usually given on a volunteer basis). Community involvement also needs to recognise the different levels of community and not focus exclusively on any particular group (and in particular avoid the tendency to refer only to the most local community). Considering 'community' as 'communities of interest' rather than geographic communities only will assist in this.

It is clear then that to manage for the historic heritage values of Wellington Park, a more integrated approach to values management and use needs to be developed with respect to processes.42 Given the current approach to management, then key aspects which need to be built on are the GIS values database, the Project Proposal Form process for assessing minor works, an environmental impact assessment process for major developments, and the strategic and zone planning. Development of an historic heritage management strategy is seen as another key to addressing the current imbalances and for ensuring historic heritage is fully integrated into management. The Management Evaluation meeting also made the point that it is important to respect agency autonomy (eg, should try and work in a way that uses the various processes/approaches of each agency where possible).

Successful multiple use management approaches used elsewhere should also be considered, and particular aspects that should be explored are values based management zoning (rather than use based zoning) and other spatial mapping of values that assists in making good decisions (such as the Forestry Tasmania Management Decision Classification approach), strategic planning approaches, and social values assessment and community involvement in decision making.

Structural Approaches Structural mechanisms for improving integration are also important as it is difficult for processes to be effective if the processes occur in structures which are not useful or appropriate. The processes however should be accommodated in the current structure if possible.

A useful, structural type, mechanism for integrated management is an advisory body that has scientific or technical representation for the range of values and uses that are being managed for. In relation to Wellington Park there is provision for both a Management Advisory Committee body and a Management Coordinating Committee which are of this type. The Advisory Committee however does not operate in a formal sense and the latter only meets twice a year and is not considered to be entirely suitable in its present form (ie, does not have broad enough representation). Other Tasmanian examples of technical and/or interests groups that provide useful integrated values management advice at various levels are the 'World Heritage Area Team' and 'Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Consultative Committee' managed by the Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, and the Forest Practices Board Specialists. The Mountain Water Supply Heritage Advisory Group has been established to perform a similar function for the Mountain Water Supply System, but it is not a formally recognised group at this stage and its effectiveness has yet to be established as it has only been operating for c.1 year.

There are also a small number of special-use working groups that have been formed for Wellington Park (eg, the Bike Working Group and Tracks Working Group), but it can be argued that these do not assist an integrated management approach as they are special interest groups that work

42 The Hobart Walking Club (7/9/2005) noted that in considering the management and integration of values, a better balance of the different values is needed than exists at present, with some values (eg, water supply) seeming to be dominant.


53

independently, and generally lack specialists that can advise on management needs for other values (hence in the long term may tend to promote management conflicts rather than resolve them). Review of use and other development proposals by a broadly constituted technical advisory body is seen as a better approach to identifying and resolving conflicts arising form inappropriate uses and potential uses at the early stages and for a range of alternative options to be considered. An advisory body of this type would also reduce the need to manage a number of smaller, single interest groups.

At the project Management Evaluation Meeting it was generally felt that the current structure could adequately accommodate historic heritage management needs, and the formation of more specialist advisory or other working groups should be strictly limited43 as they have a large resource cost. In making this comment there was limited opportunity to consider of the needs of integrated management and how well these needs are being met by the current structural mechanisms, and there was no opportunity to discuss preferred advisory group models. The development of a multi-value technical advisory group in lieu of a number of small working groups therefore still requires more consideration as a potentially useful and achievable mechanism to improve integrated management for Wellington Park (see also 'Communications', below). If the approach taken is a single broad advisory group, rather than a number of small specialist working groups, then the Hobart Walking Club (7/9/2005) advocate incorporation of relevant community and skills voices in such a group.

To ensure that historic heritage is adequately included in management planning and other decision making for Wellington Park and to balance the use focussed groups, some alternative interim structural measures may need to be adopted, for example the use of some form of heritage advisory panel or reference group (that preferably includes an independent heritage voice and a community voice), or the existing working groups may need to be expanded to include historic heritage expertise.

Role & Value of Policy

Policy sets the framework for management. As such, policy is extremely important for historic heritage management.

The main policy for historic heritage management in Wellington Park is contained in the WPMP. The overarching policy to 'retain the essential cultural characteristics of the Park' when combined with the objectives for historic heritage provides relatively strong policy for the preservation of the historic heritage of Wellington Park, but provides little guidance on how this should be achieved. There is additional policy specifically for historic heritage in the WPMP which has some policy items that do provide this level of guidance, including that conservation and management will adhere to the Burra Charter. A number of the policy items however are little more than a rewording of the objectives or a principle of the Burra Charter, and as such are not considered to assist in providing a clear framework for historic heritage.

This, and the fact that this policy is not translating into specific policy and prescriptions for sound historic heritage management in the various subsidiary strategic and planning documents, suggests that there is a need to review the existing policy for historic heritage management and ensure that it provides clear policy and principles to direct historic heritage management. As well as having 'framework' type policy (eg, the presently existing adherence to the Burra Charter guidelines and the protection and maintenance of significant heritage), policy and principles for other key aspects of management (such as integration with other values and use management, involving relevant expertise, and incorporating public views and interests) also need to be considered.

43 It was generally felt that the establishment of new groups should be carefully assessed and only occur where there was a demonstrated need (ie, 'groups should have a purpose').


54

Communications

Although there were no specific comments made in relation to communications as part of historic heritage management, comments were made that implied that the lines of communication were not as clear as they might be and were hindering the ability to effectively manage the historic heritage in Wellington Park. Comment from field-staff about being unclear as to who they should contact about what indicates failures in communication are linked with a lack of clarity about who has responsibility for what.

Currently, communication in relation to the general management of Wellington Park is via 1. the Advisory Committee (which rarely meets formally, and tends to rely on the WPMT Manager or agency staff to initiate when a need is perceived), 2. the Management Coordinating Committee (which meet only twice a year), and 3. regular, informal discussion between relevant staff on a needs basis. While the latter mode of communication is efficient for day to day management, it is difficult for those who do not have a major responsibility for management of the Park to engage in this forum. The Project Proposal Form is another existing communications tool, but it is not consistently used.

Improving communications is likely to significantly benefit historic heritage conservation. This will require clarification of the appropriate lines of communication for various situations and making this information available to people who need it. Improved structures for discussion and decision making can also help. The Management Evaluation Meeting queried whether the Management Advisory Committee and Management Coordinating Committee structure was the best approach for historic heritage related communications and decision making, and also noted a preference to find effective alternatives to committees if possible because of the resource implications of running committees, but acknowledged that alternative approaches would be likely to require improved planning, policy, processes and protocols to ensure that the necessary communication did occur.

Other points raised or relevant in connection with improving communications are that – at a general level the WPMT should act as the central communications conduit; there is a need to better link and integrate the various planning, strategic and other management

documents; decisions regarding cultural heritage (or potential impacts to cultural heritage) need to be made

in consultation with agency heritage expertise – in all cases this needs to be meaningful and early); and

the limited human resources for historic heritage management in each agency.

Involvement of Heritage Expertise

Article 4 of the Burra Charter is that "Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of a place". This implies that heritage expertise is essential for both the identification and assessment stage and for on-going management.

It appears that this is not consistently happening for Wellington Park. For example the way in which historic heritage is treated in the Site Development Plans (eg, limited site identification and background historical research, lack of methodological overview, no assessment of sites against recognised criteria, and general presentation (refer Volume 2, Section 3)) suggests that there has been limited and inadequate involvement of heritage experts in the preparation and review of these plans. The minimal consideration of historic heritage in existing management strategies also suggests minimal, if any, input or review by historic heritage expertise. It also appears that historic heritage expertise is not being formally sought in the assessment phase for works which will have an impact on the historic heritage. The recent consultation in relation to proposed risk management options at Sphinx Rock appears to be a case in point.


55

The review has also noted a number of what appear to be inherited inadequacies which also suggest that the appropriate range of heritage skills and disciplines are not being used where needed. An example noted by the present review is in the Design & Infrastructure Manual (2004) which has as a policy that access structures/viewing platforms 'should not be bigger than or more dominant than, the structure/feature to be reviewed'. This is not a standard for heritage practice and is thought to be a well intentioned but not universally necessary or useful echoing of the Pipeline Track CMP (Murray & Nieberler 1994, 32) principle that "no works shall appear to be more dominant than the Pipeline Track and its features and sites themselves" and comment in relation to particular viewing platform that it is "too big, more dominant than the structure to be viewed ..." (Murray & Nieberler 1994, 28).

In addition, comment received from the consultation (refer Appendix 3) indicates that field staff are not getting the access to heritage expert advice that they need to help them to do the on-ground maintenance work they are required to do. In part awareness and more targeted practical training can help here, but there also needs to be a capacity for staff to get in-house or other expert advice for specific issues when required.

All this points to inadequate use of appropriate heritage expertise in making decisions or taking other actions that may, or will, affect historic heritage. It is likely that a large part of the issue is the lack of knowledge about the historic heritage of Wellington Park and its management level invisibility, rather than a lack of access to heritage staff. This is supported by the general view of the project Management Evaluation Meeting which was that there is adequate heritage expertise within the combination of agencies that manage Wellington Park. The issue therefore seems to be one of how this expertise is used, which in turn relates to policy and processes for this. The project review indicates that there are no clear processes or policy for this. Access to heritage expertise should not be a problem as each land management agency has cultural heritage expertise on staff that should be able to be used for at least initial advice. Although these staff do not have archaeological expertise (which is likely to be the most relevant type of heritage expertise for Wellington Park), there is a capacity to engage external heritage expertise for this when required.

The above suggests that the use of heritage expertise needs to be improved, and that where heritage expertise is required, the appropriate expertise needs to be used. This also suggests that the spread of expertise available to the WPMT may need to be increased so that historical expertise and archaeological expertise are available for general management purposes. How the available expertise is used also needs to be reviewed so that the input of existing staff is recognised, equitable (or otherwise agreed and compensated) and used effectively for historic heritage management. This is also important to ensure that the agency heritage specialists can budget their time and can respond in a timely manner to requests for their input, particularly as their involvement in Wellington Park is an extremely small part of their overall duties and responsibilities.

There are range of options as to how these needs are met, including – agency employment of a broader range of skills (more people or a different skills mix), agency employment of non-heritage staff with some heritage training, out-sourcing projects, developing a contractual 'retainer' type arrangement to have particular heritage services provided, providing skills training for agency staff in specific high need areas, and advisory mechanisms such as establishing a heritage advisory body or reference group, or having historic heritage expertise on a broader technical advisory panel (see 'Integrating cultural Heritage into Management', above).

Education & Awareness

Given the issues of cultural heritage invisibility discussed in Section 3.2 and some of the above issues, increasing staff awareness about historic heritage and its management requirements is seen to be an important means of improving the conservation of historic heritage, especially where relevant cultural heritage expertise within the agencies and WPMT is limited to a very small number of


56

cultural heritage staff (1 - 2 full time positions in the Hobart City Council, a 0.5 position in the Glenorchy City Council and 2 full time positions in the Parks & Wildlife Service for the whole State).

The Hobart City Council and Hobart Water have in the last six months started to provide historic heritage focused cultural heritage awareness training to relevant agency staff. This has been limited to one half day and one full day general course aimed at field staff and at providing essential background. It is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the training, however initial observations suggest that it has been effective in raising the profile (hence reducing the invisibility) of historic heritage for staff that have attended, including by slightly improving the maintenance of the more visible heritage assets, primarily the Mountain Water Supply System.

Intervention by untrained staff working without guidance carries a high risk of negatively impacting the historic heritage. It is not appropriate for someone with only basic cultural heritage awareness training to go out and repair sandstone masonry as there are a range of heritage considerations that need to be taken into account and which need specialist knowledge. This basic level of training is also not sufficient to enable a planner to make decisions about what is of heritage significance and what is not, or for an engineer to make a decision about the future management of a site on their own. Again these types of decisions need specialist heritage skills or training.

The cultural heritage awareness training also does not provide adequate training for carrying out maintenance and other conservation work at sites. There is however a need for, and expectation that, field staff (especially in the HCC managed area) will undertake such work as part of routine maintenance and repair work, but staff feel they do not have the expertise to do this. Field staff carrying out routine maintenance therefore need training in routine tasks such as cleaning sandstone, how to effect temporary and minor repairs to structures, and removal of plants from heritage sites. This could best be provided by on-the-job training. More specialist skills are better acquired by nominated non-heritage staff attending appropriate short courses. An alternative option is to try and include these skills within the agency by employing non-heritage staff who already have these skills. Key specialist heritage skills that would benefit not only Wellington Park, but the management of the historic heritage in Hobart generally are stone masonry, horticulture and landscape planning, and the acquisition of fabric condition assessment and conservation skills by engineering staff or other built asset managers would also be useful.

Rationalising the range of in-house skills is an important consideration, given that resources are always limited. As the Hobart City Council has the greatest need for these types of skills (because it has such a large amount of highly significant heritage to manage), if this approach is considered then the possibility of out-sourcing this expertise to other agencies who do not have the need or capacity to have such expertise in-house should be considered. This type of expertise sharing is particularly relevant to the Wellington Park situation because of its particular management structure and the very different levels of requirement for such skills in the different area of management responsibility.

Another useful mechanism to increase awareness of heritage issues and heritage management needs is the pre-works induction. This is particularly useful for works being undertaken at heritage sites or in areas of high heritage potential, and is an effective, low cost way of helping contractors to observe the requirements for heritage protection. This is particularly important as experience has shown that 'operator' error is a major cause of impacts to heritage (generally because of a lack of information and awareness). This was very much the case in wood-production forests in Tasmania in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Once the damage is done it cannot be undone. Pre-works induction for contractors carrying out ground disturbing works in archaeologically sensitive areas is now a relatively a routine recommendation in many places.

In any construction area the workers operating the excavators and using the picks and shovels are the people who will be seeing the in-situ heritage and they can avoid unnecessary impacts if they can


57

recognise heritage and understand what is required for heritage protection. There are issues associated with this. The archaeological monitoring experience of one of the authors [AM] has shown that even where contractors are asked to be aware of historic heritage and with the best intentions to comply, heritage is likely to be impacted unless it is identified by the archaeologist because contractors were simply unable to recognise historic heritage. The considerable pressure to get the construction work done is an added disincentive. Inductions therefore not only need to train operators to reliably recognise historic heritage and understand what constitutes heritage impacts, but they must also be given the information they need to know how to act in various situations and be encouraged and instructed to act on these.

There is also a need to raise the awareness of visitors to Wellington Park in relation to the range of heritage within Wellington Park, its fragility and management requirements, in particular the impacts of visitors on the heritage and what constitutes good visitor behaviour. This is normally and most effectively done via heritage interpretation, including by providing verbal advice at the start of tours. In particular places there may be a need for signs to encourage care and appropriate behaviour, but this should not be the focus of the interpretation and, as discussed below, visitor related infrastructure should be kept to a minimum at sites

Community Involvement

Community involvement in historic heritage management is an important issue. Because of the social values that frequently attach to historic heritage there needs to be community involvement in the assessment of sites and in determining their appropriate management. There are requirements for community consultation and involvement in the Burra Charter, and there are statutory requirements for community consultation in the WPMP. There are also statutory and policy requirements for community inclusion in municipal planning and at other levels of municipal business.

As with other areas of historic heritage management there is nothing formal currently in place in relation to community involvement. The historic heritage related community involvement initiatives that have been identified are the inclusion of community consultation in assessment projects (such as the present project), the community heritage identification project in the Collinsvale area (Waight 1995), the Wellington Park oral history project (Stoddart 2004), the Mountain Huts Network which is a community group with responsibility for managing a small number of historic huts44, and a 'Back to Merton' day for the community organised by the Glenorchy City Council. There has also been public consultation in relation to the preparation of Wellington Park plans and strategies, and in relation to modifications to a small number of places identified as having historic heritage value.

These are all seen as positive community involvement initiatives, but fall short of being an established or comprehensive program that will meet the range of needs and opportunities for community involvement throughout the Park.

This is an area that needs more consideration as there is a range of ways of improving community involvement, but many (eg, committees) have significant resource and continuing community good-will implications. The project findings suggest that useful directions to consider pursuing are – maintaining community consultation in planning (but, to increase the opportunity for community

scrutiny and to give community confidence that the consultation is being taken seriously, there is a need for protocols about levels of involvement and the use of community comment);

continuing to ensure there is provision for relevant community consultation in historic heritage projects;

ensuring the social values of the historic heritage of Wellington Park are adequately assessed;

44 The Wellington Park Tracks Working Group also has responsibility for historic tracks, but this is not an explicit role and the group mainly has recreational perspective.


58

ensuring those community organisations with a particular and demonstrated interest in the historic heritage of Wellington Park are involved where relevant as acknowledged stakeholders (organisations identified by the project as being in this category are the Hobart Walking Club, the New Norfolk Historical Society and the Fern Tree Community Association)45;

expand the scope and membership of relevant existing Working Groups and Reference Groups (eg, the Tracks Working Group and the Mountain Water Supply Heritage Working Group);

developing long term community caretaker initiatives to address particular heritage management issues of relevance and interest (this is likely to require some type of negotiated agreement with protocols/prescriptions and regular review, and some training/an induction may be necessary for participants);

less formal community volunteer initiatives for interested individuals and small informal groups for specific tasks (suggested by individuals/groups/WPMT)46; and

building community awareness of historic heritage and its management and establishing a rapport with interested members of the community through organising or assisting the organisation of occasional events such as 'back to' days, special site visits, heritage celebration days (displays, talks, seminars).

3.3.3 Issues & Opportunities for Interpretation & Presentation47

Interpretation – General Approach

As the inventory and audit demonstrate, Wellington Park has an extremely rich and varied history and has a long term history of non-Aboriginal use. This history, together with the special geographic context of Wellington Park, its long term resource utilisation and recreational use, and its current high level of recreational use combine to create considerable possibilities for historical and heritage interpretation.48 At present however there has been limited interpretation of these values within the Park.

Interpretation to date has been essentially limited to overview historical information on the generalist interpretation panels in the summit viewing shelter, a publication on the history and social values of Mt Wellington through a number of oral informants (Stoddart 2004), and a number of interpretation panels on the Pipeline Track (inside and outside the Park) that interpret aspects of the Pipeline Track's construction and use. Apart from the Pipeline Track interpretation the interpretation has been carried out by the WPMT and/or the Hobart City Council. The Pipeline Track interpretation was a Fern Tree Community Association initiative and project, but the way in which it was carried out provides a good example of an integrated project process with good heritage and interpretation outcomes.

There has been a long term ongoing view that the approach to interpretation in Wellington Park should also be an integrated approach. The 1991 Working Group report (HCC 1991, 41) talked about "an interpretation master plan for the future" (and noted in this context that further historical,

45 There may also be others that are identified in the future. 46 This option is the preference of the Hobart Walking Club as it is difficult for the Club to enter into agreements on behalf of individual members and to guarantee services, and there are associated issues (eg, covering risk and insurance) although they are supportive of members helping with the maintenance of what they use (HWC 7/9/2005). 47 Note: The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 1999) does not distinguish between 'interpretation' and 'presentation'; rather it defines interpretation as 'all the ways of presenting the cultural significance of a place', and sees the role of interpretation as being to enhance understanding and enjoyment of a place while respecting the cultural significance of the place and being culturally appropriate. 48 It is assumed in this discussion that interpretation is aimed at meeting the objectives for interpretation and education as set out in the WPMP (1997 & 2005).


59

documentary and oral research was required for this), and the WPMP provides for an Interpretation Plan for Wellington Park. The recent project Management Evaluation Meeting concluded that interpretation of the historic heritage in the Park was also best achieved through an integrated Wellington Park Interpretation Plan. This would therefore seem to be a generally desirable approach.

Themes for Interpretation

A number of themes for interpretation of the history and heritage of Wellington Park have been suggested. These are listed in the WPMP (1997) and appear to be derived from Macfie (c.1994). It should be noted that apart from recommendations for interpreting the Pipeline Track and Springs Hotel site, the recommendations for interpretation focus on themes for interpretation and do not make specific recommendations for what sites should be interpreted.

In summary themes that have been recommended for interpretation are – management of the mountain (c. 100 years of management of at least part of the Park as a

reserve) reshaping the mountain (how the mountain has been used and modified to meet the needs and

aspirations of Hobart's European settlers) visitors and mountain dwellers (to explore the wide and diverse range of people who have had

an association with the mountain) tracks & huts (evolution and social history of these sites) women on the mountain (a long term history) history of scientific use of Wellington Park the importance of the Park as a source of drinking water for Hobart and the associated

engineering works the impact of fire in the Park (in particular the social history) monuments and events the Springs hotel site the cultural (& natural) history of the Springs site generally the Pinnacle Road (an important Depression period undertaking and to present the social

history) the Prisoners Stockade (to interpret the use of conscripted labour in developing the mountain)

With the exception of the 'monuments & events' theme, which is likely to have little interest as an isolated theme, the present project concurs that the above are all suitable themes for interpretation. The project has also identified a small number of additional specific themes that could be interpreted, which are – the mountain as weather station (utilising the establishment of Wragge's two observatories as the

core of the theme) (in part recommended in the WPMP) remote area use (timber harvesting, grazing and possum hunting) Myrtle Forest and tourism development in the Collinsvale region Jefferys Track (and connections between the Derwent & Huon areas) the Exhibition Gardens the Icehouses complex.

In the view of the present project, the priority for interpretation should be broader themes that integrate the landscape aspect and the history of use. Approaches that look at the evolving historic use of Mt Wellington and/or Wellington Range based on its resources, or explore its history as the hinterland of Hobart and an essentially natural fringe environment, or which explore the natural features and the social values are considered important because they help us learn about the history of Hobart and the broader region, and help us understand the layered meanings of Wellington Park.


60

They therefore contribute to our understanding of what Wellington Park is and its relationship to other parts of our social, historical and natural environment.49

Presentation Issues & Approaches

In developing interpretation for historic heritage in Wellington Park or deciding what heritage places to present, the nature of the heritage also needs to be taken into account. Particular aspects that need to be considered are the social value and what is appropriate in this context, the physical nature and condition of the heritage and the level of visitation and/or recreational use that it can withstand, and the ruinous and hidden nature of much of the heritage which gives it a certain mysteriousness which engenders particular presentation approaches. Also, not all the heritage has the same values, qualities or physical attributes, hence it is difficult to make generic policy-type statements or prescriptions for historic heritage interpretation. Given the above, the following are some ideas to be considered in developing interpretation

With respect to social values, some sites have strong personal meanings and associations that need to be respected. The huts sites are possibly the most important set of sites in this regard as there are still people alive who were involved the building of these places and/or in their long term use and care, or there are relatives or other close associates of these people who take a strong interest in these places. Some of the farming and milling sites around the peripheries of the Park also fall into this category, and a number of natural features and other sites near Fern Tree are of particular importance to groups within the local community. The strong social values of places have positives and negatives for interpretation. Positives are that there is likely to be more information for these places and personal stories which will enrich the interpretation. Negatives are that presentation and interpretation of certain places may not be desired, or certain aspects of the interpretation may need to be left out.

It should be noted that there are at present three huts for which the policy is no publicisation – including no presentation, no showing on public maps or other publicising of location details, and no direct mention in published material on the history and heritage of Wellington Park. It is the preference of the owners and carers that the existence of the huts is not made public, and this has occurred for so long it can be considered as part of the traditional use of the huts. Each hut is known of by a small group of people who have been introduced to the hut by previous owners, carers or associates or by these others who have taken people to the hut on the basis that they will respect the desire that it remain secret. Three sites are flagged as sensitive in the historic heritage database.

The largely archaeological nature of many of the sites also has implications for presentation and interpretation. Essentially at many sites there is little to see and consequently they will not be of particular interest to visitors. At present most of these sites have only a low level of visitation or are not visited at all. This ensures their long term survival. High levels of regular visitation may result in degradation of some sites especially where there are sensitive in ground features (historic tracks are an example in this category). In the project consultation concern was also expressed that the opening up of new sites to the public and/or increasing access would increase vandalism. Where a high level of visitation is deemed appropriate and encouraged, sensitive sites may need to be hardened. In many cases, such as tracks or where there are archaeological deposits, surfacing hardening may not be appropriate and the visitor numbers/level of use will need to be managed. It will be generally the case that highly visible infrastructure (including signs and access barriers or directional fencing) is an inappropriate form of presentation where there is limited physical evidence.

The nature of much of the historic heritage of Wellington Park also lends itself to self discovery or to being revealed in an intimate way. The fact that most sites are not visible to the general visitor, but 49 In focussing on themes for interpretation of the historic heritage, the HWC (7/9/2005) notes the need to prevent themes for presentation (of heritage) leading to an over narrowing of perspectives and values.


61

hidden in the bush and largely unknown is part of this. The fact that most sites are little more than vegetation covered ruins that hint at the past history of the place and are being engulfed again by the forest also gives a sense of mystery and romance that makes large numbers of visitors and modern, highly visible access infrastructure inappropriate. The sense of mystery also encourages secrets that are there for the passionate to hold and the intrepid to discover. The community consultation undertaken for the project also suggests that self-discovery and personal introductions are the preferred approach of community members who have had a strong interest in the historic heritage of Wellington Park. This approach also minimises the costs of heritage management, as opening large numbers of currently unvisited sites to the public will require access tracks, possible site hardening and impact monitoring and rehabilitation.

The above considerations point to appropriate interpretation and presentation for the historic heritage of Wellington Park being low key, highly select, sensitive to social values, and to the greatest extent possible, remote interpretation. Appropriate forms of interpretation are seen as being via off-site interpretative material such as books and pamphlets, through interpretation at centralised locations which are foci of visitation rather than at sites. Signs and other infrastructure are also considered inappropriate for a large number of sites. Advertising of actual site locations is generally seen as inappropriate, and the current form of self discovery and introductions to sites by those who have found out for themselves is seen as a highly appropriate style of engagement with the historic heritage of Wellington Park. The small guided historic walks run by the Hobart Walking Club are seen as being keeping with these considerations (especially given their involvement as builders and caretakers of many of the sites), as are the historical walks to Upper Merton facilitated by the Glenorchy City Council. Small guided commercial parties which visit select historic heritage places may also be consistent with these considerations.

The heritage places in the Springs, Pinnacle and Myrtle Forest zones are likely to have fewer constraints as these are highly visited areas and already have considerable infrastructure. These are seen as ideal centralised sites for heritage interpretation (of local or other Wellington Park heritage). The Pipeline Track is seen as being half way between these zones and the remote, largely unknown sites that should have minimal visitation. Infrastructure at these locations should be in keeping with the heritage values.

There are some aspects of the Park's history that are now lost and where these are a special part of the Park's history and there is good information about them it may be desirable to rebuild examples. In general there is inadequate information for any sites to enable 'reconstruction' (this would require too much conjecture), but construction of 'examples' may be appropriate. Where this is the aim, and there is no attempt to reconstruct a known site from limited information, there should be minimal risk of 'hypothetical reconstruction' which is not permitted under the WPMP.50

The only heritage type place that is considered by the present project to lend itself to this treatment is the recreational hut of the c.1890 to 1910, with its highly stylised rustic architecture and decoration. The huts of this period were a special feature of Mt Wellington, and although none are extant today we have good photographic evidence for the original structures. In addition a structure of this nature could be used for shelter as they were originally. Macfie (c.1994) suggested that a replica of one of these huts might be appropriate as a heritage interpretation centre. The icehouses are another feature unique to Mt Wellington, but in the view of the present project it is not appropriate to rebuild an example of these as it would create considerable environmental disturbance, there is limited information about their construction and they would require maintenance but not have an obvious use to offset this ongoing cost.

50 'Hypothetical reconstruction' normally means the partial, and to a lesser extent, full rebuilding of an historic structure, which is them presented as the 'restored' original structure. Hypothetical reconstruction of a place is usually avoided as tends to distort the historic qualities of the place and compromises its authenticity.


62

Design Considerations

Infrastructure at sites and precincts should be in keeping with the heritage values, including with respect to design. The Burra Charter does not provide any specific principles for this aspect of heritage management, but the general principles should be taken into account, in particular the need to – respect the existing fabric, use, meaning and associations of the place, recognise and retain an appropriate setting, and change as little as possible and minimise disturbance of the fabric.

The design implications of this are that infrastructure should seek to be unobtrusive, should seek to minimise fixtures, use designs that are removable with minimal impact, and seek to use materials and styles that are in keeping with the original styles and materials. Distinguishing new work from old (another Burra Charter principle) does not require modern styles (or other obvious visual marks). It can be achieved simply by using a consistent, minor stylistic difference and/or dating new work.

It should be noted in this context that some of the design principles in the Design & Infrastructure Manual (WPMT 2004b) will be inappropriate for sites and precincts in Wellington Park. For example the standard design for handrails in the manual (treated pine post and rail) is unlikely to be appropriate for historic sites generally as it is a modern material and not an historical design, and it is also unlikely to be appropriate for lookouts and guard rails at natural features as it includes non-native non-local materials. The use of local materials is something that is seen as being particularly appropriate as this was the general way of doing things historically, and because of the largely natural nature of Wellington Park. For one community member the use of local materials and an approach that minimises environmental damage shows 'the ultimate respect' for the Park.

3.3.4 Other Management Issues & Opportunities

In this section more specific issues not dealt with elsewhere in the management analysis are discussed. The discussion includes issues raised as part of the project consultation. (The issues are not listed not in any particular order of priority).

Specific Heritage Places In the project consultation concerns were raised about a small number of specific heritage places. These places are –

the Springs area Silver Falls Fern Tree Bower Pipeline Track Upper Merton Montrose Trail area Jefferys Track.

Concerns included inappropriate developments in these areas seen to detract from their values (Springs, Silver Falls, Fern Tree Bower & Pipeline Track), the need for more research prior to making development decisions (the Springs), poor quality of work that detracts from the heritage values and recreational enjoyment (Fern Tree Bower and Silver Falls), and access and use (and associated) issues (Jeffery's Track, Montrose Trail area and Upper Merton).


63

The project believes that these concerns highlight the need for good heritage information before making management decisions, for the heritage values to be taken into account in making management decisions and for improved community consultation in managing the historic heritage of Wellington Park. Better visibility of the historic heritage and better integration of historic heritage in management should also help improve management performance and minimise the types of community concerns and criticisms.

Track Management The management of the historic tracks appears to have a number of issues. Although there is a Tracks Working Group, there is no evidence that the group concerns itself with historic heritage issues or historic tracks that are not recognised walking tracks, it has not heritage expertise on the Group, and it appears consequently that issues relating to historic heritage are not being addressed. Issues identified in relation to Wellington Park tracks are – the potential risks to heritage values of tracks by not considering these values (eg, through fire

management requirements and bicycle use) (refer the 'Integrating Historic Heritage into Management' above),

the closure of historic tracks and tracks with community or other amenity value (eg, Reids Track and the track to the Pillinger Drive Reservoir),

loss of historic tracks by forest reclamation if tracks are not kept clear of vegetation, lack of essential, low level maintenance (eg, keeping tracks open by regular vegetation control

and removal of tree throws across tracks with low level use), and inappropriate structures on tracks (specifically the chicanes on the Pipeline Track which were

seen as ugly and unnecessary and dangerous at night).

The issues point to a need to review the scope of the Tracks Working Group so that consideration of historic heritage values and potential impacts can be included in the Group's decision making; for the maintenance of historic unused tracks to be reviewed; and possibly for the caretaker role of the HWC to be reviewed and formalised and/or for some other community group caretaker system to be established. A review of the listed tracks in Wellington Park may also be useful to ensure that the historic heritage values of tracks themselves are flagged for management. The classification of tracks identified as historic sites should be reviewed to ensure the classification does not conflict with the conservation requirements. Historical tracks that are not used for recreation may need a special classification that recognises their different management needs. This would be useful in increasing the visibility of the historic heritage and its management needs.

Weeds Weed invasion does not appear to be a major issue, but some issues have been identified in this respect. The main issues relate to – introduced weeds being a factor in loss of character and natural values for Wellington Park, the work needed to control invasive species if allowed to spread, and increased fire management issues with respect to some species (eg, pines).

Some of the historic sites in Wellington Park, primarily the farms and permanent habitation sites and parks, have introduced plantings. Many of these plantings will survive at the sites, and are part of the historic heritage. Where surviving plants are invasive they may cause a problem. The pine trees in the Upper Merton area are an example of this. Luckily, most of the known plantings are not particularly invasive or are of local native species and little management is required.

The other main issue is where introduced weeds establish at historic heritage sites. This may result in a loss of heritage value, and there may be significant issues if the weeds are invasive and need to be removed. One project respondent noted that there were introduced weeds at all sites where humans have access between the Pinnacle and Fern Tree. In this case it is unclear whether these are


64

historically introduced or introduced by current human use, but this was seen as an issue in relation to preserving the character of the Park.

In general it is accepted that highly invasive species need to be removed even though they might have heritage value because of the other values at risk, but that non-invasive introduced plants with heritage value or that contribute to the heritage value should be retained. There are introduced species that fall in the middle of these two end points and it is generally the case that the heritage values and potential to spread from their actual location need to be assessed before any action is taken. This issue needs to be reviewed for the Park and a policy established. In doing so it would be useful to review other approaches to dealing with this issue, for example the advice provided to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (Gilfedder 1995).

Risk Assessment In terms of making decisions the need for better risk assessment has been raised. Given recent actions and proposals to erect fences or barriers in areas of historic heritage for risk management purposes (eg, chicanes on the Pipeline Track and a fenced platform at Sphinx Rock) and given that there are likely to be more proposals of this nature, this is clearly an area that needs to be considered. In considering the issue, the range of risk management needs and the potential impacts on the historic heritage values need to be fully assessed and minimal impact options for high risk management need to be explored, so that the this issue can be dealt with in a pro-active manner (to reduce conflict) and so that the actions taken are appropriate for the heritage.

3.3.5 Urgent & Immediate Heritage Issues

The above discussion looks at management issues generally for the historic heritage of Wellington Park. One of the key issues that needs to be specifically addressed is how to move from what is effectively little more than point zero, to a fully operational heritage management system. This section looks at some of the priority needs to get such a system up and running, and to address any major, urgent historic heritage conservation issues.

Historic heritage is an asset and it can be useful to look at management needs in the same general way. For example it is difficult to manage built assets that you don't know about or have little information about. This is also true for historic heritage. Built assets also require cyclical maintenance and inspections (monitoring), again also needs of most historic heritage. In the same way that built assets require catch-up maintenance where it has been let go, so historic heritage places whose conservation requirements have been ignored will also require catch-up maintenance.

Using this analogy, the following historic heritage management needs can be viewed as priority 'catch-up management' works –

improve the data base (ie, learn more about where sites and precincts are and what they are) (the priority in this respect in order are the Springs Zone and Pinnacle Zone which are the main areas identified for development in Wellington Park and also identified as being of extremely high heritage sensitivity)

formalise and develop the heritage data management system develop a historic heritage management policy (&review the WPMP policy) develop a works assessment process (possibly use, but formalise the PPF process) develop & make known generic protective provisions for sites and precincts to operate until

sites and precincts have their own individual management policy (based on understanding the place and its values)

develop and implement provisions to protect as yet unknown (potential) historic heritage (eg, may involve generic prescriptions and/or sensitivity zoning)


65

develop an Historic Heritage Management Strategy (HHMS) to provide sound, coherent, visible and accessible guidance for the management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park (to tie together existing and new policy, processes & procedures)51

review existing Park strategies, manuals and zone management plans (& upgrade to ensure historic heritage has visibility and adequate protective provisions; relate to the HHMS)52

as an interim measure establish a historic heritage working group to support the development and implementation of the priority tasks (to provide oversight & assessment of, & feedback to, the priority tasks and to provide the necessary range of heritage skills and knowledge to the process)

ensure all agency staff, contractors and volunteers working with historic heritage in Wellington Park are provided with cultural heritage awareness training (to help improve heritage visibility and help avoid inadvertent damage).

On the basis of the current state of knowledge of the historic heritage, the current management framework, the policy framework for historic heritage and the key issues and other issues for management identified by the present project, these tasks are considered to be the most urgent to improve the management of historic heritage in Wellington Park.

These tasks are included in the recommendations in section 4.1, and the urgency to carry out these tasks is reflected in the prioritised listing of recommendations in Section 4.2.

51 This is seen as an urgent need in order to make the requirements and procedures for historic heritage management visible and to provide balance to the existing strategies and plans which are use focussed and do not adequately consider cultural heritage management needs. In the longer term this single value strategy may be able to be replaced by a multiple values management strategy, or other strategic approach. 52 In this context the proposed review and upgrading of the Pipeline Track CMP (the only existing CMP for Wellington Park) is timely as it is 10 years old (and a number of legislative and other relevant changes have occurred), includes only part of the site and has other deficiencies which reduce its effectiveness as management tool for the conservation of the Mountain Water Supply System. This review is considered a priority since the site complex is an operational system that provides an essential service.


66


Part 4

MANAGEMENT ADVICE


67

4.1 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & ADVICE

The following are the recommendations that arise from the inventory, audit and management assessment stages of the Wellington Park Historic Heritage Audit Project. This advice is designed to provide for best practice historic heritage management in Wellington Park.

More specifically the recommendations are aimed at – 1. enabling essential 'catch up historic heritage management' after a period where historic

heritage has been only minimally considered in the management of Wellington Park, and 2. establishing the framework required to put the management of historic heritage in

Wellington Park on a sound long-term footing.

The recommendations are at a number of levels and range from long term to interim measures.

The recommendations focus on and address the key issues of heritage invisibility and lack of heritage data, and other urgent and immediate issues such as the need to improve management mechanisms and to better integrate heritage into management at the strategic planning level. The recommendations also address areas the present project was asked to specifically consider, including education and awareness, interpretation, and identified and potential conflicts arising from the existing management advice.53

Each recommendation is accompanied by an outline of the reasons for the recommendation and, where relevant, implementation and related advice. Other general advice is contained in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

1 Urgent & Immediate (& Interim) Requirements

1.1 The historic heritage database established by the present project to be adopted immediately as the Wellington Park' site and precinct' listing that is used for management purposes (as per the WPMP). It is to replace the 1996 Inventory (WPMT 1996) that is currently in use, and is to be updated regularly to include new available information. (NB: Proto-precincts are to be treated as 'precincts' until the recommended study is carried out (refer recommendations 2.1, 2.2 & 2.3).

Given the limited site inventory that has been available until the present project inventory, it is important that the new, considerably larger site listing and site information be used as the basis for management. Since the key protective mechanisms for historic heritage in Wellington Park (under the WPMP) apply only to recognised 'sites and precincts', it is essential that there is an identified listing of sites and precincts and that this is kept up to date. The electronic database developed by the present project is considered the most appropriate site listing as it is the most comprehensive current listing of management data, and is able to be easily updated as new sites are identified and new site information becomes available. (The project inventory which contains only a selection of information from the database is not considered to be a management tool. It is seen rather as a record of the historic heritage knowledge for Wellington Park at one point in time). At this stage no precincts have been identified, but three areas have been identified as potential precincts (& termed 'proto-precincts, refer Figure 2) and should, recognising the Precautionary Principle, be afforded the same level of protection as precincts until they can be properly assessed.

53 The recommendations for conflict management are not presented in are mostly contained in recommendations for integrated management and to improve historic heritage management, education and awareness.


68

1.2 The WPMT to act as the central communications conduit in all matters relating to the historic heritage of Wellington Park until the Historic Heritage Management Strategy (refer recommendation 4.1) is in place.

Until responsibilities and appropriate lines of communication can be properly assessed and established (via the Historic Heritage Management Strategy), there is a need to provide some guidance on appropriate channels of communication to assist staff and to provide a level of management confidence. This is particularly important given the complex management structure for Wellington Park. Given the coordinating role generally for the WPMT, the WPMT is seen as the appropriate body to coordinate communications and can best achieve this if they are the main communications conduit.

1.3 The objectives and policy for historic heritage in the WPMP continue to be used as the primary policy and guidelines for the historic heritage of Wellington Park until more up to date and considered policy is developed (as part of preparing the Historic Heritage Management Strategy (refer recommendation 4.1)). The actions for historic heritage in the WPMP to be implemented as recommended in the present study.

The WPMP provides the overarching direction and management policy for Wellington Park, including the historic heritage. All historic heritage management therefore needs to be considered in the light of WPMP provisions until a Historic Heritage Management Strategy is developed as there are in effect no other specific guidelines. The WPMP guidelines however should be interpreted through the findings and recommendations of the present project in order to understand and ameliorate the deficiencies of the plan. Now that one of the recommendations of the WPMP – the historic heritage audit – has been undertaken there is new knowledge that needs to be taken into account and a better understanding of the data inadequacies, and there are findings and recommendations that need to be taken into account in the management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park.

1.4 The WPMT to establish an Historic Heritage Working Group for Wellington Park as an interim measure to guide the development of the historic heritage management capacity for Wellington Park and to provide advice in relation to the management of historic heritage in Wellington Park.

This recommendation is designed to address the invisibility of historic heritage in Wellington Park (particularly in a management context) as well as the inadequacies in relation to integrated values management and lack of clarity in responsibilities and communications until the management of historic heritage in Wellington Park can be more fully evaluated and better established in a Historic Heritage Management Strategy. Also a body of historic heritage expertise will be required to guide the implementation of the Historic Heritage Management Strategy (refer recommendation 4.1). The Working Group is only seen therefore as being needed until the Strategy is approved and ready for implementation. The formation of a Working Group is recommended in the absence of an alternative group that could guide the development of the Historic Heritage Management Strategy and because there is no historic heritage management advice being formally provided at this higher advisory level at present. The Working Group should ideally include professional expertise in the following areas - archaeology, built heritage, history and heritage landscapes. The WPMT should consider the following suggested composition for the Working Group – the heritage professionals from the various agencies, 2-3 independent heritage professionals (it may be appropriate to have representatives from local professional bodies such as Cultural Heritage Practitioners Tasmania and the Professional Historians Association) & representatives form the from the three key interested community organisations identified (Hobart Walking Club54, Fern Tree Community Association and the New Norfolk Historical Society).

54 The HWC strongly support Club involvement in such a group (HWC 7/9/2005).


69

1.5 All intervention (including repair, other minor works, new uses and new development) at identified sites and precincts to be subject to a 'Project Proposal Form' assessment process and approval except where there is established management policy for the site/precinct which will be taken into account. The Project Proposal assessment must be based on a recent site inspection and assessment by a heritage professional, and this information must be documented. For major works a full EIA is an appropriate alternative evaluative approach (as long as the historic heritage evaluation is carried out by an appropriately qualified heritage expert). All Project Proposal Forms/EIAs are to be assessed by the appropriate cultural heritage officer of the relevant land management agency or other delegated heritage expertise, and/or the Historic Heritage Working Group.

It is critical that there is a formal process to evaluate or review the appropriateness of works, new uses and other developments at identified sites/precincts in Wellington Park with respect to potential impacts on the historic heritage significance (as required per the Burra Charter) in Wellington Park. Since the Project Proposal Form process and EIA provisions already exist, and both mechanisms are provided for in the revised WPMP (WMPT 2005), then these are seen as appropriate mechanisms for evaluation or potential impact assessment. Because of the current invisibility of historic heritage, the Project Proposal Form process is seen as being extremely important for assessing and approving repairs and minor works. There is a requirement in the WPMP that a conservation policy or plan will be prepared 'before any decision about major works, use removal or interpretation of historic heritage'. However, given that at present there are almost no sites that have this level of assessment, having site inspections and professional assessment is essentially a needs based way of providing an adequate level of management data for the sites/precincts in Wellington Park. Major new uses or works proposals and evaluation should be assessed by the Historic Heritage Working Group as these are likely to have a major impact on the heritage values. Minor works and repairs should be assessable by in-house heritage staff. This recommendation articulates critical requirements for historic heritage management (as per the Burra Charter guidelines), including the need to have a sound understanding about a place and its fabric and condition, and to have professional heritage input in order to develop policy. The recommendation should stay in place until the Historic Heritage Management Strategy is in place, at which point the guidelines, process & protocols recommended by the Strategy should be adopted.

1.6 For all other areas of Wellington Park all intervention that will cause or will potentially cause modification of the ground, vegetation or built structures (except those identified as non-sites in the historic heritage data base), the works or use are to be subject to assessment by the appropriate cultural heritage officer of the relevant land management agency or other delegated heritage expertise, and/or the Historic Heritage Working Group to ensure potential heritage values are not compromised. The assessment and any conditions for heritage conservation must be documented, archived and provided to those planning

This recommendation recognises that effectively no on-ground site survey or documentation has been carried out to date in Wellington Park and that there is potential for historic heritage values to occur throughout the Park. In the absence of any established mechanisms or other guidelines (eg, sensitivity zoning) for evaluating the potential impacts for works in areas of the Park that are not known historic heritage sites or precincts, and recognising that some areas will be highly sensitive while other areas are likely to have minimal sensitivity, it seems most appropriate to have the initial assessment carried out by those who have the most knowledge of the historic heritage of Wellington Park. It should apply to all works and use, including new developments, routine & other work carried out by agency staff, and recreational and other uses that potentially have a high impact. This initial assessment is seen primarily as a desktop type assessment which is the most minimal approach to protect the potential historical heritage values of the works or use area. This initial assessment should, where possible, provide direct recommendations for historic heritage protection, or otherwise should recommend further investigation (including on-ground survey and site documentation) before a final recommendation


70

and/or undertaking work (this may be via a Project Proposal Form assessment process).

is made. Where no further assessment is required the assessment should also set conditions on the works/use/development (where deemed necessary/advisable). Documentation of the assessment (including information used and some justification of the conclusions and recommendations) is essential to ensure there is clear direction for historic heritage protection during the works/use/ development. A written assessment will also mean that future works/use/development in the same area will not need the same level of assessment as this will have been carried out and be available. This level of documentation is also an established part of good heritage practice (as per the Burra Charter guidelines). This recommendation should stay in place until the Historic Heritage Management Strategy is in place, at which point the protocols and procedures recommended by the Strategy should be adopted.

1.7 On ground survey, assessment and formulation of management policy be undertaken for the two highest sensitivity areas that are also in development areas – namely the Springs area and the Pinnacle area (as defined on the project site and precinct map) prior to any new works or decision making for these areas. [Refer also recommendation 2.2]

This recommendation recognises that there are two areas of Wellington Park which are considered to be potentially of extremely high historic heritage significance which are also at extremely high risk – both being the key areas designated for development under the WPMP. Although Site Development Plans have been prepared for both areas and these should provide advice for managing the historic heritage values, in the view of this project neither plan has been able to do this satisfactorily as both have been based on extremely limited historic heritage information (as a consequence of which they have failed to recognise the existence of highly significant sites in these areas). (Note: the additional work being done on the Exhibition Gardens site at the Springs will help redress this problem but in itself does not adequately address this issue for the Springs area). This work is seen as the highest priority site/precinct research for Wellington Park (refer recommendation 2.2). This work should be undertaken before any further works or other intervention in these two areas (refer recommendations 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6). The Site Development Plans for the Springs and Pinnacle will also need to be upgraded in the light of the findings from these studies (refer recommendation 4.2).

1.8 Until an assessment of the landscape values of Wellington Park is completed and the Historic Heritage Management Strategy is in place, the Hobart face of Mt Wellington within Wellington Park (ie, the area between New Town Rivulet, the Pinnacle, Browns River and the Park boundary) should be considered as an 'historic cultural landscape' and all major works and new developments (& uses) of this area should be assessed in this context to ensure that potentially important landscape values can be adequately

The Hobart face of the mountain has been shown from the inventory stage of the present project to contain the bulk of the identified sites in Wellington (since it has been the focus of historical activity in the Park since European arrival in Tasmania). As a consequence this area has an historical and physical network of interrelated sites (particularly the huts and tracks, but also major features such as Wragge's two observatories, the icehouses and the sites at the Springs and other early resource extraction sites). Combined with this are the strong aesthetic and social values that attach to this part of Wellington Park, and which are manifest in community opposition to major developments historically and today (eg, the cable car, the Pinnacle Road, developments at the Springs, the Pinnacle viewing shelter, the most recent telecommunications tower). This complex of cultural values and their interrelatedness are consistent with the area being a significant historical cultural landscape.


71

protected in the short term. [Refer also recommendation 2.4]

If future developments are considered in the light of the area being a significant historical cultural landscape, then there is a better chance to meet the range of objectives of the WPMP in relation to cultural heritage values than exists at present with the piecemeal, site by site approach to assessing impacts to the cultural heritage, and there is likely to be better historic heritage protection generally and better overall management generally as major issues can be identified in the planning stages. This recommendation is only seen as being needed until the Historic Heritage Management Strategy is in place (as it will provide sound guidance on assessment processes, including with respect to more integrated assessment and decision making), and until the landscape values assessment is completed (which will clarify the nature of the landscape values, including cultural landscape values, that apply to this area and provide some guidance on the requirements for the retention of cultural significance).

1.9 The WPMT to hold a meeting of all Trust and agency staff who have a management responsibility for, or work in areas that may impact on, the historic heritage of Wellington Park to present the findings of the present project (in particular the new heritage place findings, key issues for management and key recommendations). Also, until a Historic Heritage Management Strategy is in place(refer Recommendation 4.1), the meeting should be used as an opportunity to provide interim advice on historic heritage management for the Park, in particular respective responsibilities and desired approaches to, data management, communications, works assessment requirements, and community engagement.

This is seen as an immediate need to help address the key issues of historic heritage invisibility and the complex nature of the management structure for Wellington Park. An alternative, administratively simpler approach would be to provide Park staff with a summary of the project findings and recommendations, but the reality is that few people will read the summary. A meeting will also give people a chance to ask questions and clarify any concerns and/or confusion. The meeting need only be of c.1 hour duration. It could be one large meeting, or a separate meeting could be held for each land management agency. A single meeting would be more beneficial for improving communications and integrating management, but is likely to be harder to organise and get good attendance. The meeting should include the range of people with a direct and indirect responsibility for historic heritage management in Wellington Park – including planners, engineers, fire management, landscape planners, recreational planners, natural values managers, parks specialists, field supervisors, field staff, data managers and, if possible, representatives from relevant Working Groups. Consideration should be given to also providing staff with a handout of summary key information for reference purposes.

1.10 The WPMT should consider publishing a newspaper article and/or radio time to promote the historic heritage of Wellington Park, inform the community of the present project and its findings, and to outline the recent initiatives and future management directions for the historic heritage of the Park.

This is seen as a desirable immediate need for heritage promotion to address the issue of heritage invisibility and the need for community involvement. A major public initiative such as this will promote the historic heritage of Wellington Park and its management needs to the public. It is a way of publicly and quickly getting out the message that there is a range of historic heritage in Wellington Park, that much of it is significant, and that the WPMT and the land management agencies take the management of these values seriously. It should help engender community interest and improved support and increase staff/agency pride in the management of Wellington Park. It is suggested that the article/radio coverage is in the nature of an informative, 'good news' story. The WPMT should also


72

consider seeking appropriate HWC or other community group participation to provide more interest. This is seen as a once off action, not a regular promotional activity

1.11 The WPMT consider employing someone with appropriate heritage expertise for 6-12 months to assist the implementation of the urgent & high priority recommendations that require or could benefit from professional heritage expertise (in particular to develop the Historic Heritage Management Strategy, establish a data management system, undertake the research recommended for the Springs and Pinnacle areas, and also possibly provide some of the recommended training. (Refer recommendations 1.1-1.9, 2.2, 3.2, 4.1, 5.5, 5.6 & 5.7)

A number of the key recommendations from this report will require heritage expertise. The recommendations are such that a number of key recommendations are unlikely to be able to be carried out with existing staff (ie, because there are not enough staff (& existing staff are already fully occupied) and because there is a lack of archaeological expertise within the relevant agencies). The usual method of implementing recommendations when there are inadequate in-house resources is to engage consultants. However, given the range of work that needs to be undertaken it is likely that the in-house employment of temporary staff will be more cost effective than having the work undertaken as consultancies and should therefore be considered as an option. This approach offers other benefits (eg, to be able to have the Historic Heritage Management Strategy developed in-house as this will allow a better understanding of how the management system works and for better in-house consultation and liaison; being able to use the temporary staff for training (particularly on-site training); and provides additional staff to undertake urgent site documentation and assessment work). This approach would also reduce the current reliance on external volunteer advice (which is a limited resource). There may be timing and resourcing issues that make this approach difficult. In this case the WPMT should consider undertaking the recommended work as a combination of temporary in-house employment and consultancies if possible.

2 Improving the Historic Heritage Knowledge Base

2. 1 Undertake appropriate studies as a matter of priority to identify additional historic heritage in Wellington Park and to improve the level of knowledge for the identified sites/precincts. For all identified sites/precincts the studies must include on-ground inspections for each site, and where appropriate historical background research and oral information. The site information must be documented and entered into the historic heritage database, and a hard copy place record made if there are data that are not able to be entered into the electronic database.

Although many places are listed in the inventory, the audit has shown there are areas of Wellington Park for which there is effectively still no historic heritage information, no historic themes have been adequately researched, there has been effectively no field based studies undertaken and there are very few places that have an adequate level of information for management. As minimal survey, ground-truthing or site inspections have been carried out the most essential information in most cases is for field based investigation and site documentation. Oral information is seen as the second priority as this resource is limited and ageing. Oral information is best collected on-site as it provides much more reliable information (comments can be checked and much more accurate location information can be obtained) and this context is likely to assist oral informant recall. Approaches that allow the field, historical and oral information to be bought together are preferred approaches. Consideration should also be given to investigating sets of related sites as single studies (eg, all tracks between Newtown


73

(NB: The following recommendations provide more explicit advice for implementation of this recommendation).

Rivulet and Brown River, or all huts of a particular type or period) as this is likely to be more cost effective and will allow more reliable assessment of sites. than individual site assessments

2. 2 Carry out comprehensive historic heritage studies for areas of very high heritage value or potential as a matter of urgency, giving priority to areas which are also high development potential areas. The priorities for this are in order of priority - the Springs area, the Pinnacle area and the Junction Cabin area. (Refer Figure 2 for the location of these areas, and to the accompanying maps for a better definition of the area in question).(Refer also recommendations 1.7 & 2.1)

Compilation of the inventory has shown that there are a small number of areas in which a number of historic heritage places are focussed (the Pinnacle, the Springs and the Junction Cabin area) and that these places date from the early 1800s to present and use in some cases from the late 1700s. These areas (which are defined in Figure 2 and the accompanying large scale maps and are not the same as the management zones of the same name) are considered to be amongst a small number of places in Wellington Park that potentially have extremely high cultural heritage significance (with all or part having State or higher level significance). Further investigation (historical, social and of the physical evidence) is however required to reliably determine the nature of the physical evidence and heritage values in these areas. These areas are therefore seen as being of the highest priority for further research and it is essential that this research is carried out prior to any new development55. (NB: Previous lack of understanding of the history and heritage potential of these areas has already resulted in significant loss of heritage value in these areas). These studies should be used as a basis to develop an area CMP or other detailed management advice for the area, and to assess if the areas should be recognised as precincts (as per the WPMP), and if so, to clearly define the values and appropriate boundaries.

2. 3 Carry out comprehensive historic heritage studies for other specified areas of identified heritage value &/or potential (sensitivity) as a research priority. These areas are: Higher Priority – the Montrose Trail area, Myrtle Forest Reserve, Upper Merton, the Big Bend area and the Central Plateau area; and Lower Priority – the Brushy Creek-Guy Fawkes Rivulet area, the Springs-Strickland Avenue area, the Central Fern Tree area, the Gum Top Area, and the Myrtle Forest - Fairy Glen Park fringe. (Refer Figure 2 for the location of these areas, and to the accompanying maps for a better definition of the area in question).(Refer also recommendation 2.1)

Compilation of the inventory has shown that there are a small number of additional areas in which there is focus of known historic heritage and also potential for other historic heritage to occur, hence are of high heritage sensitivity. Given that the historic heritage in these areas is not documented or is poorly documented, and there is potential for as yet unidentified sites to occur, these areas are seen as important areas in which to focus research efforts. Research in these areas needs to ground truth identified places and record located places, and carry out intensive field survey to identify any additional places or other historic heritage values. Given the poor level of existing information for most sites, additional historical and social values investigation is also likely to be required to fully document and assess the historic heritage of these areas and ultimately provide site and area management advice. At present there is no management advice (or only preliminary advice in the case of Myrtle Forest Reserve and Upper Merton) for the historic heritage in these sensitive areas, and while the areas are unlikely to be subject to major development or changed use, there are management issues (eg, public access, community involvement, use levels, rehabilitation and fire management), the resolution of which requires an understanding of the historic heritage values of the area.

55 Research of the Junction Cabin area is seen as being slightly lesser priority than for the Springs and Pinnacle areas.


74

2. 4 Undertake an assessment of landscape value of Wellington Park as a matter of urgency. The results are to be incorporated into the Historic Heritage Database and the project should also provide guidance on the on the appropriate management of the identified landscape values.

No assessment of landscape values has been carried out to date and was beyond the scope of the present project. Consequently the inventory does not include landscape values (other than in an opportunistic manner, for example when discrete natural features are noted as being of social significance historically and/or today). It is clear from a number of sources (eg, de Quincey 1987, Hepper & de Gryse 1994, Macfie c.1994, Waight 1995, Leaman 2001, Sheridan 2004 and Stoddart 2004) that the Wellington Range, hence Wellington Park, has important landscape values, many of which are likely to be extensive. These need to be assessed if they are to be managed. The potential level of significance of the landscape values are such that this study is seen to be of high priority.

2. 5 As a priority carry out heritage studies of those individual sites identified in this study as having state and/or possible higher level significance, and as the next level of priority research those places with possible state level significance (with Jeffery's Track having high priority within this group). (Refer also recommendation 2.1)

Ideally, good land management includes a moderate to good level of information for all historic heritage values. However where there are large numbers of known historic heritage places, such as within Wellington Park, this is often not possible. Priority needs to be given therefore to the most significant and/or at risk places. Since Wellington Park has places of identified state level significance and possible state level or higher significance, these places should be the priority for place research. The audit results indicate that the only identified places of state, probable state, or higher level significance that have adequate documentation (or for which this is underway) are the Mountain Water Supply System and the Exhibition Gardens. The other 24 places with state or higher level significance and the other 35 places of possible state level significance lack adequate place information for assessment and management. (Note: If heritage studies are undertaken for the Springs, Pinnacle and Junction Cabin areas, then this research is likely to capture and provide adequate data and assessment for approximately 10 (c.38%) places of identified state level significance and 2 places with possible state level significance). This research will require field inspection and possibly historical background research, oral information, and community consultation to allow the place to be adequately documented, assessed and for the development of management advice.

3 Improving the Management of Historic Heritage Information

3. 1 The historic heritage database will recognise and list all historic sites and precincts in Wellington Park (and adjacent) in such a manner that sites and precincts in Wellington Park can be easily identified for management purposes and the listing will be current.

Since under the WPMP the protective mechanisms for historic heritage in Wellington Park are through the protection of 'sites' and 'precincts', it is critical that historic heritage sites and areas are identified as such. To this end the project data base has been set up to list sites and precincts (with precincts listed separately). Most places that have been identified in this project and incorporated into the database are individual, small area places which are clearly sites. In the database heritage areas and heritage or cultural landscapes (as opposed to small scale natural features) should be treated as precincts and site complexes are treated as sites.


75

To date no precincts have been identified, but several areas which may be heritage precincts have been recognised. These are termed 'proto-precincts' and should be treated as precincts until sufficient research is undertaken to determine if they are precincts (refer Recommendation 2.2, Figure 2 and accompanying maps).

3. 2 Manage the historic heritage information on an ongoing basis. The information should be managed as a tripartite system – 1. electronic site & precinct

data base, 2. GIS based spatial data

(including for sites & precincts), &

3. hard copy comprehensive site files.

Prior to the present project there has been only a minimal inventory (WPMT 1996) and there have been no place records. The present project has developed a much larger and information rich data base which will need greater management. This project has also created place record folders to hold the hard copy information (photos, maps, articles, reports, etc) sourced by the project and this hard 'place record' information, which is not easily held in a electronic database, needs to be developed for the other places and maintained in the long term. For effective management the data management system should provide for regularly updating and large amounts of text and variable format data (eg, maps, photographs, published articles, short special component reports). It is difficult to achieve all this in one system. The optimum system then is seen to include 1. an electronic data base as the main data base as this can handle text data, can be easily updated and is accessible; 2. GIS type spatial system to aid management and use of the spatial data; and 3. a set of place records that can hold the hard copy records that are difficult to store electronically. With respect to the GIS type system, it is essential that maps of the places are maintained and the system integrates to other Wellington Park GIS and other databases).

3. 3 The WPMT secretariat to act as heritage information coordinator and maintain, or have oversight of, the maintenance of the electronic data base and GIS historic heritage information. The WPMT to act as the interim depository for, and manager of, the hard copy heritage data and reports until a satisfactory long-term solution can be found for managing these records.

The historic heritage information is not a static body of information and will require updating on a regular basis when there is new heritage information or when there is intervention in a site or place. It is therefore essential that there is coordination of this information. As the WPMT has management oversight it is seen as the relevant body to also have oversight of historic heritage data management. This role will involve updating (or ensuring updating of) the electronic data base and the GIS based system as necessary, ensuring the various managing agencies are given the updated information in a timely manner, and the data are accessible to those who need it. (Note: The information on the historic heritage of Wellington Park that has been put into the THPI database as part of the project will also change and will need to be managed and kept updated). It is also important to manage the hard copy data, but this is a more time consuming and complex issue, and at present there is no agreed, logical, effective approach to this. The issue therefore needs more consideration. As there is already a body of reports and hard copy site data which need managing, and more is expected to be generated, an interim solution is required. The WPMT is seen as being the logical interim centralised manager of this data given their other historic heritage data management responsibilities and given that they are currently the de facto centralised repository for this material.


76

3.4 The confidentiality of sites will be respected where they are acknowledged as being sensitive or non-disclosure of information is otherwise required.

There are a small number of sites which are not generally known and there is a strong desire by users and former owners and caretakers that they remain unadvertised and that their locations are kept confidential. This confidentiality is also a recommendation of Abrahams (2001) and the present study because it recognises the social values of these sites and Wellington Park more generally, and helps retain this cultural significance. This request has been respected to date by the WPMT and relevant land managers and members of the public, and since there appear to be no issues relating to this, the practice should continue.

3. 5 Upgrade all existing place records (hard copy records) into coherent place records, and develop place records for all places with more than basic level information.

This project has sourced a range of hard copy information (photos, maps, articles, reports) for a number of places and has put this information into place record folders to eliminate the need for someone to review the same sources in the future. Because of the project constraints however there has been no opportunity to develop this information into coherent 'place reports' to assist record management and updating of records. In addition, as further heritage studies are carried out more hard place information will be come available and this will also need to be collated into individual place reports. The information in them will not be useful and highly time consuming reviews of primary resources and/or site visits will be required every time the place information needs to be reviewed or developed unless this information is systematised and accessible,

3. 6 Update the historical heritage information in the Wellington Park Tracks Database

In compiling the project inventory it was found that the grid references for historic heritage features in the Wellington Park Tracks Database are generally not highly accurate, and more accurate location information is available. Where this is the case the location information in the Tracks Database should be upgraded to the most accurate available information. The Tracks database should also indicate which tracks are historical heritage as sites (to flag the need for consideration of this in making decisions about their management), and names for historical heritage places in the Tracks Database should also be changed to be the same as that in the Historic Heritage database.

NB: There is no recommendation to update the THPI database as this will be done as part of the present project.

4 Getting on Track - Towards a Strategic & Expert Approach

4.1 Prepare and implement a Wellington Park Historic Heritage Management Strategy. The Strategy should consider and provide policy, protocols, procedures, prescriptions and other relevant guidance as appropriate for the conservation and management of the historic

At this stage of management, a Historic Heritage Management Strategy is seen as being extremely important 1. as a vehicle to provide clear advice on managing historic heritage - something currently lacking; and 2. to balance the minimal consideration of historic heritage in the Wellington Park strategies developed to date. The key issues of invisibility and the unknown nature of the historic heritage of Wellington Park are in large part the consequence of an inadequate framework for historic heritage


77

heritage of Wellington Park. It should use as a basis the objectives of the WPMP, the Australia ICOMOS (1999) Burra Charter guidelines and other relevant legislation, and take into consideration, but not be limited to, the existing structures and processes of the WPMT and the land management agencies for Wellington Park, and the findings of the present project in relation to historic heritage management. (Note: The inclusion of conservation advice/policy for specific sites or precincts in the Strategy is not seen as appropriate). (The following recommendations (4.1-4.10) are subsidiary actions that will help develop the Strategy. They are essentially for the development of protocols, procedures, etc, for specific aspects considered to be important for sound management of the historic heritage and conflict minimisation which at present are not adequately provided for.)

management. A Historic Heritage Management Strategy which provides policy, protocols and other guidelines for historic heritage management in Wellington Park will not only address this lack, but can also assist the integrated management of values and reduce potential management conflicts if it is well thought through and considered in the broader management context. Policy, protocols, procedures & other guidelines are also important in achieving a consistent and appropriate approach and more efficient management; will ensure overarching objectives and policy requirements are met; and will engender confidence in management (but only if the policies, etc, are followed – it is not enough simply just to have them). The Strategy needs to reflect and respect, as far as is useful, the existing structures and framework for Park management (including resourcing and agency autonomy) and for historic heritage. In determining approaches to managing historic heritage in Wellington Park it also needs to review and consider other comparable approaches. Specific areas that the Strategy should consider of are – 1. at what level the historic heritage will be managed by the various land managers (including whether all heritage (or what types of heritage) should be included in agency asset registers; 2. the levels of expertise required for the different tasks & the most effective balance and use of staff and external expertise for various tasks; 3. resourcing matters, including providing guidance on how costs might be shared between the different management agencies, opportunities for other funding, and indicative costs for various routine repair and maintenance work that might be needed in the Park; 4. options for managing data gaps (as it is likely the whole Park will not be surveyed for some time), in particular spatial gaps and providing a recommended strategy(s) for this (which should include consideration of the merit of sensitivity zoning); and 5. useful mechanisms for improved linkages with other values and use management mechanisms, and generally how to improve integration with other values and use management.

4.1.1 Review the overarching policy for historic heritage in Wellington Park (contained primarily in the WPMP) and if necessary revise in the light of the present project findings, the Australia ICOMOS (1999) Burra Charter guidelines and other relevant legislation and statutory provisions. There is a need to have clear policy and principles to direct heritage management that will also translate easily into more prescriptive advice. Existing policy for the protection and maintenance of significant heritage needs to be reviewed, and there is likely to be a need for policy and principles for achieving this, as well as for policy for and other key aspects of management (eg, integration with other values and use management and the involvement of relevant expertise and public views and interest).


78

4.1.2 Clarify responsibilities for historic heritage management and develop protocols and

guidelines/ prescriptions (as necessary) for communications in relation to managing and providing advice for the historic heritage of Wellington Park (to consider internal and external communication). This has been identified as a management area for which there is inadequate clarity and advice.

4.1.3 Develop protocols, processes and guidelines/prescriptions (as necessary) for historic heritage data management for Wellington Park. This has been identified as a management area for which there are effectively no established procedures. Consideration of this area needs to include all aspects of the heritage information base (ie, the electronic data base, GIS layers, hard copy place reports, research reports) and to consider the range of tasks, including data acquisition & entry, formats, updating, distribution, access/security, appropriate uses and updating of the THR & THPI where relevant.

4.1.4 Develop protocols, processes and guidelines/prescriptions (as necessary) for assessment and decision making in relation to intervention at, or new uses of, sites and precincts. This has been identified as a management area for which there are no clear established processes or protocols. A specific consideration in relation to this area is that it is not possible to make generalised or generic type management decisions for individual heritage places and that the advice will need to provide for decisions making on a site by site basis. The role and needs for risk assessment also need to be considered.

4.1.5 Develop protocols, processes and guidelines/prescriptions (as necessary) for site maintenance. To include consideration of appropriate levels of staff expertise, approvals and reporting requirements. This has also been identified as a management area for which there are no clear established processes or protocols or other guidance.

4.1.6 Develop protocols, processes and guidelines/prescriptions (as necessary) for regular monitoring of historic heritage condition. To include consideration of appropriate personnel and levels of staff expertise, and reporting requirements. This has also been identified as a management area for which there are no clear established processes or protocols.

4.1.7 Develop policy and general guidelines (as necessary) for the interpretation (including presentation) of the historic heritage in Wellington Park. This is another area for which there is no management advice at present (although there are some infrastructure design principles in the Design & Infrastructure Manual). The advice provided should be general and help provide a foundation for the development of an integrated Interpretation Strategy for Wellington Park as a whole. It may also need to consider interim advice for historic heritage. The advice should provide guidelines not only for appropriate options for interpreting the historic heritage, but also in relation to how to educate the public about what they can do to protect heritage and about the management requirements for historic heritage.

4.1.8 Develop protocols and guidelines for the use of heritage expertise (in-house, consultants and other external) This is seen an important need given that 1. the appropriate use of heritage expertise is a requirement of the Burra Charter; 2. arising from the present project there are requirements for a range of actions in relation to historic heritage; and 3. there is a lack of existing policy or protocols for this area.


79

4.1.9 Develop policy, protocols, and guidelines/prescriptions (as necessary) for the

incorporation of historic heritage in management strategies, planning and other similar documents (eg, manuals) for Wellington Park. This needs to be considered to ensure that historic heritage is considered in the range of future management documents for Wellington Park (eg, strategies, plans & manuals) and the way in which historic heritage is considered is in keeping with the goals, objectives and policy for historic heritage in the WPMP and other key relevant documents.

4.1.10 Develop policy, protocols and guidelines (as necessary) for the involvement of the community in the assessment and management of historic heritage in Wellington Park. This is another area for which there are no clear established policy or protocols (although there is an obligation for community involvement in the WPMP and Burra Charter). The aim in this area should be to develop a balanced program for, and/or strategic approach to, community consultation and other involvement. In developing this area consideration should include community interests, the volunteer nature of most community participation, and the obligations and issues arising from this (eg, to ensure the consultation/involvement is meaningful and efficient, and appropriate time frames). It would be useful to consult with the community in developing this area.

4.2 Review all subsidiary area plans for Wellington Park, document current historic heritage values information and revised advice for inclusion in the individual plans, and update as soon as possible.

The present project has highlighted a number of major deficiencies in the way in which historic heritage has been considered in the Site Development Plans for Wellington Park prepared to date, and has shown that these deficiencies can have potentially negative impacts on the historic heritage, including potentially highly significant historic heritage. As well as addressing management conflicts, the advice for updating the Site Development Plans and other area plans will need to have provisions to 1. ensure that good heritage data is used in the plans as a basis for making decisions, and 2. that new data can be integrated. It has not been possible to address this issue as part of the present project as a better framework for historic heritage management, more data and more consultation will be required.

4.3 Review all management strategies for Wellington Park, document areas where recommendations, actions etc conflict with historic heritage conservation requirements (using the present project review as a basis), and provide detailed advice to improve the protection and integration of historic heritage values in each strategy. Update the strategies as soon as possible.

The present project has highlighted a number of major deficiencies in the way in which historic heritage has been considered in the existing management strategies for Wellington Park, and shown that these deficiencies can have potentially negative impacts on the historic heritage, including potentially highly significant historic heritage. It has not been possible to address this issue as part of the present project as a better framework for historic heritage management and more consultation will be required.

4.4 Review the effectiveness of the performance based approach of the WPMP as a protective mechanism for historic heritage after an appropriate period of implementation (eg, for the next plan review in 5 years), and make recommendations for improvements to the approach or alternative approaches if relevant.

The new proposed 'performance based' approach to management for Wellington Park is an approach developed for private land subject to a range of uses and development and is an unusual approach for an area reserved primarily for its natural and cultural values. Although there has been an attempt to tailor the conditions, performance criteria and acceptable solutions to the particular requirements of Wellington Park, it is unclear how well this approach will work for the natural and cultural values of the Park. Given that the approach is designed to facilitate development


80

rather than manage values, it is critical that the effectiveness of the approach in relation to historic heritage protection is assessed prior to the next review of the WPMP to ensure that any necessary changes can be incorporated into the next revision of the Plan.

5 Other Framework & Capacity Building

5.1 Develop in the longer term an advisory capacity that includes external and independent heritage expert advice based on an evaluation of existing capacity. This should include consideration of using existing formal advisory mechanisms (eg the Park Management Advisory Committee & Management Coordination Committee (to include external members)), a purely technical advisory committee at a similar level, a historic heritage advisory group and a historic heritage reference group. This advisory group is to replace the interim Historic Heritage Working Group (refer recommendation 1.4)

To ensure a voice for historic heritage in the management of Wellington Park and to improve integration there needs to be some capacity to have identified heritage expertise with a role in commenting on the management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park and of the Park more generally. At present there is no formal mechanism for this which is recognised and routinely used. There are a range of options that need to be considered, including using existing committees. Aspects that need to be taken into account are 1. how the needs of integrated management are best met, 2. resource efficient approaches that will still deliver good management advice, 3. including the appropriate range of expertise, and 4. the need for external, independent heritage experts to avoid potential conflicts of interest. If a dedicated specialist heritage group is the preferred option it should ideally include heritage expertise from each of the Wellington Park management agencies and Heritage Tasmania, independent professionals (possibly from relevant local professional bodies), representatives from key community organisations with a demonstrated interest, and a small number of other relevant community representatives.

5.2 Retain and formalise the Mountain Water Supply Heritage Working Group to consider and provide coordinated stakeholder advice in relation to the conservation of the MWSS. The Working Group should be expanded to include at least one community representative.

The Mountain Water Supply Heritage Working Group currently considers and provides coordinated stakeholder advice in relation to the conservation of the MWSS, but does this in an informal manner. This is an important group given the heritage significance of the MWSS, and the multiple management responsibilities and multiple uses of the site complex. Its operation however would be more effective if it was formally recognised. Given that a large part of the site complex is outside Wellington Park it is considered more appropriate to have a dedicated Working Group for the site than for it to be part of a broader Wellington Park historic heritage working or advisory group. The long term existence of the group should be considered in, and be subject to, the MWSS CMP review proposed to be undertaken in the next 12 months. In the interim, to provide a more effective coordinated voice the Working Group should be formally recognised. Also, to meet obligations for community involvement, the Working Group should be expanded to include at least one community representative. Consideration should be given to this representative being sought from the Fern Tree Community Association as this community group have had, and maintain, the closest interest and involvement in the site complex.


81

5.3 Community groups with a particular and demonstrated interest in the historic heritage of Wellington Park should be acknowledged, and where appropriate included in the management of historic heritage in Wellington Park, as key community stakeholders. Community groups who should be included in this category at present are the Hobart Walking Club, the Fern Tree Community Association and the New Norfolk Historical Society.

This recommendation is designed to help meet obligations for community involvement under the WPMP in respect of historic heritage management. It also helps recognise the social values of the historic heritage of Wellington Park and the requirements of the Burra Charter. The groups specified are those that have demonstrated an interest in the management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park, or at least a component of the historic heritage. There are other groups that may have an interest and should be considered in the longer term. These include (but are not limited to) the Glenorchy Historical Society, the Collinsvale History Group and the South Hobart Progress Association. (Landcare and Bushcare group responses to the present project consultation suggest that these groups have no specific interest in historic heritage). There will be a need to consult with the various community groups as to how they want to be involved, and the groups may wish to define specific geographic or other areas of interest. The involvement will need to be in line with policy and protocols for community involvement as set out in the Historic Heritage Management Strategy.

5.4 To acknowledge the long term association of the HWC with Wellington Park and current interest by individual members in the maintenance of aspects of the historic heritage, the WPMT should consult further with the Hobart Walking Club to assess the Club's interest in, and possible arrangements for, their involvement in the care of the historic heritage of Wellington Park. In making any agreements, consideration will need to be given to basic training, risk management and insurance.

This recommendation is designed to help meet obligations for community involvement in respect of historic heritage management (refer recommendation 5.3). It also responds to a stated interest and perceived need by members of the HWC who have been involved in building, and as caretakers for, a number of sites (and who are operating in this way currently with WPMT endorsement, but in an essentially informal arrangement). This approach is also a cost effective way for the WPMT to achieve needed ongoing site maintenance. The HWC has indicated (HWC 7/9/2005) that while they are interested in being involved, there are a number of issues for them as a club in taking on formal agreements such as the 'Adopt-A-Track' program run by the PWS. They have indicated that a less formal, more open, agreement for members such as a 'work as you walk' agreement may be better suited to the Club. Further discussion was suggested. To ensure the sites and volunteers are adequately protected, the arrangement should be formalised in a written agreement that sets out necessary conditions. (This can be brief). The agreement should also provide for basic heritage management awareness and maintenance training (eg, as initial on-the-job practical guidance) to ensure a good heritage outcome and as a way of capacity building (refer recommendations 5.5 & 5.7). Other similar agreements could be considered if the agreement with the Hobart Walking Club proves effective and there are other groups who express an interest in the management of other heritage. In determining what sites/areas are appropriate for caretaking by different groups the social values of the historic heritage must be considered and the interests and historical associations of the potential caretaker group should also be taken into account.


82

5.5 All agency staff who are involved

with the management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park at any level (in particular those making management decisions – eg, planners and managers) and who do not have heritage expertise should be provided with historic heritage awareness training. This should be undertaken as a matter of priority.

As the decisions or actions of any person involved at any level with historic heritage can negatively impact on historic heritage values, all people working with historic heritage need to be aware of what constitutes good and poor practice and impacts to sites/precincts, and to be informed of the protocols and procedures established for Wellington Park (refer recommendation 4.1). This recommendation is designed to compensate for the current lack of awareness of historic heritage in Wellington Park and of the management needs and general framework and standards for historic heritage management –a key issue for historic heritage conservation. All training needs to be provided by a heritage expert or otherwise appropriately accredited person with relevant knowledge.

5.6 All contractors and volunteers who will be working on historic heritage or in the area of historic heritage in Wellington Park, and who do not have heritage expertise, must be provided with a basic pre-works induction to ensure awareness about historic heritage conservation requirements and particular requirements for the works being undertaken.

Experience elsewhere has shown that contractors who are carrying out works in and near sites/precincts can often inadvertently negatively impact these places because they are unaware of the heritage values, are unable to recognise them and/or do not understand what constitutes impacts to sites/precincts and good and poor practice. An induction or other training is required to ensure contractors understand what historic heritage is, what historic heritage they will be working near, what are appropriate and inappropriate actions, and the relevant protocols and procedures established for Wellington Park (refer recommendation 4.1). All training needs to be provided by a heritage expert or otherwise appropriately accredited person with relevant knowledge.

5.7 Field staff and community groups actively engaged in the conservation of historic heritage sites independently of heritage expertise must be provided with on-the-job training for the tasks they will be undertaking prior to commencing.

Those actively engaged in the care of historic heritage can cause impacts if they do not understand the heritage values of the places they are working on, or do not understand what constitutes impacts to sites/precincts and good and poor practices. As with contractors (refer recommendation 5.6). An induction or other training is required to ensure field staff and volunteers working on or near sites/precincts understand what historic heritage is (even when working in a theoretically non-interventionist way – eg, site recording or taking tours), what historic heritage they will be working near, appropriate and inappropriate actions, and the relevant protocols and procedures established for Wellington Park (refer recommendation 4.1). The most appropriate training in these instances is considered to be on-the-job training at the start of a program, and the training should be kept to relevant and essential matters. All training needs to be provided by a heritage expert or otherwise appropriately accredited person with relevant knowledge.

5.8 Consideration should be given to providing specialist training in aspects of historic heritage conservation/management to select agency staff who work (or will potentially work) closely with historic heritage.

There are some heritage management tasks, in particular routine and emergency maintenance and planning that require specific knowledge and/or specialist skills (eg, understanding fabric deterioration, replacement of weathered or damaged masonry or care of heritage plantings). The normal process is to employ specialists to undertake this work. However for specialist work that will be frequently required for Wellington


83

Park (or other areas of Hobart), it may be more cost efficient, hence preferable to have the expertise in house. The type of specialist skills that might be considered will depend on the skills required. They could be acquired in a range of ways - from specialist on-the-job training at a site, to sending relevant staff (eg, managers, planners or engineers) to a c.2 week summer school on heritage conservation, to encouraging and supporting staff to obtain suitable additional TAFE or University qualifications. Because these specialist skills are unlikely to be required regularly within Wellington Park or in any other single management area in greater Hobart, specialist training may need to be considered on a coordinated and/or shared, cross agency approach.

5.9 The WPMT and/or the land management agencies should organise and hold occasional events to celebrate the historic heritage of Wellington Park and to build community awareness and participation. Events which should be considered are 'Back to' days, site tours, field days to look at management issues and options, field working (maintenance) days and public lectures.

Historic heritage should be enjoyed and celebrated, not merely an obligation. To this end and to improve the visibility of the heritage, community involvement, and WPMT and community links it is recommended that special events be organised to celebrate the heritage of Wellington Park. There are a range of options which should be considered. Different options will have different costs and benefits. Useful potential options are on-site events such as 'Back to' days, site tours, and field days to look at management issues and options or to carry out specific needed maintenance tasks, and off-site events such as public lectures. Potentially of use, but more difficult to execute, hence considered of lesser priority, are history symposia and re-enactments. 'Back to' days and field days are regarded as particularly useful as they also enable the maintenance of personal associations and provide an avenue for obtaining site information from people with personal knowledge. On-site information is particularly useful as it helps resolve data inconsistencies and, when done in a collective manner, may generate information generally unobtainable from one-to-one interviews. 'Back to' days are also seen as a critical need because oral informants are aging and will not be able to visit sites in the longer term (refer also recommendations 2.1, 2.3 & 2.5).

6 Interpretation (& Presentation)

6.1 Interpretation of historic heritage in Wellington Park to be based on a general Interpretation Plan or Strategy for Wellington Park.

The interpretation of historic heritage of Wellington Park, like other aspects of management is best approached strategically to ensure the range of needs is met. It is therefore appropriate that interpretation is based on an Interpretation Strategy or Plan. Given the multiple-use nature of Wellington Park and its complex layered meanings, including the strong social values that attach to Mt Wellington and Wellington Range more generally, an integrated approach to interpretation is desirable. The Interpretation Plan or Strategy should be based on sound heritage advice. To this end preparation of the plan should include consultation with heritage expertise and be based on sound heritage analysis (refer Recommendation 6.2).


84

6.2 Undertake a background review of historic heritage interpretation needs and opportunities. To include consideration of appropriate themes for interpretation, assessment of appropriate levels and styles of interpretation for the historic heritage in Wellington Park. The review should use professional heritage advice and recognise the constraints and opportunities arising from the archaeological and remote nature of the heritage of Wellington Park, the Park's social and other cultural values, the other values of the Park and the reserved land context of the Park.

The present project has reviewed appropriate themes for interpretation and has considered presentation issues and appropriate approaches, but only at a preliminary level, hence is not considered an adequate foundation for planning or undertaking interpretation, or the development of a whole of Park Interpretation Plan or Strategy. Consequently a more detailed review and analysis which builds on the assessment of this project needs to be undertaken using heritage expertise. This review need not be a major project that requires exhaustive research, but it needs to draw together a range of information and analyse this in more depth than the current project has been able to do. The review should include a review of the history and heritage values of Wellington Park and the historical & heritage context (a comparative assessment); take into account the nature, condition and significance of the sites and precincts, and other constraints and opportunities. It should then indicate appropriate themes for interpretation and outline treatments for these themes. It should also provide guidance on appropriate and inappropriate visitor use and presentation of the historic heritage and identify issues that will need to be considered.

6.3 Update the WPMT Design & Infrastructure Manual to ensure the policy, design principles and prescriptions for historic heritage are appropriate for heritage conservation.

Although the Wellington Park Design & Infrastructure Manual (WPMT 2004) contains useful objectives, policy and design principles for historic heritage, the Manual has a somewhat imbalanced approach to the treatment of historic heritage. Also, the design principles in relation to historic heritage could benefit by further expert review and some of the infrastructure opportunities/suggestions are not always appropriate for historic heritage places in the Park. The Manual should therefore be reviewed by a heritage professional and be updated in line with review recommendations. The recommended changes should be adopted formally in the next review of the Manual and in the interim be taken into consideration in all works in the Park. The review could be undertaken following the completion of the historic heritage interpretation review or as part of that review (refer Recommendation 6.2).


85

4.2 PRIORITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table indicates the priority/timing for the implementation and operation of the recommendations contained in Section 4.1

It should be noted that the full recommendations provided in Section 4.1 should be used as the basis for interpreting recommendations since the full recommendation is not provided in this listing.

Prioritised Actions

Priority Rec No. (refer

Section 4.1) Recommendation

IMMEDIATE/URGENT PRIORITY immediate/ urgent

1.1 The historic heritage database established by the present project to be adopted immediately as the Wellington Park Site and Precinct listing that is used for management purposes.

immediate/ urgent

1.2 The WPMT to act as the central communications conduit in all matters relating to the historic heritage of Wellington Park until the Historic Heritage Management Strategy (refer recommendation 4.1) is in place.

immediate/ urgent

1.3 The objectives and policy for historic heritage in the WPMP continue to be used as the primary policy and guidelines for the historic heritage of Wellington Park until more up to date and considered policy is recommended (eg, in the Historic Heritage Management Strategy (refer recommendation 4.1)).

immediate/ urgent

1.4 The WPMT to establish an Historic Heritage Working Group for Wellington Park as an interim measure to guide the development of the historic heritage management capacity for Wellington Park and to provide advice in relation to the management of historic heritage in Wellington Park.

immediate/ urgent

1.5 All intervention (including repair, other minor works, new uses and new development) at identified sites and precincts to be subject to a Project Proposal assessment process and approved except where there is established management policy for the site/precinct.

immediate/ urgent

1.6 For all other areas of Wellington Park intervention that will cause or will potentially cause modification of the ground, vegetation or built structures (except those identified as non-sites in the historic heritage data base) the works or use to be subject to assessment by the appropriate cultural heritage officer of the relevant land management agency or other delegated heritage expertise, and/or the Historic Heritage Working Group.

immediate/ urgent

1.7 On ground survey, assessment and formulation of management policy be undertaken for the two highest sensitivity areas that are also in development areas – namely the Springs area and the Pinnacle area (as defined on the project site and precinct map).


86

immediate/ urgent

1.8 Until an assessment of the landscape values of Wellington Park is completed and the Historic Heritage Management Strategy is in place, the Hobart face of Mt Wellington within Wellington Park should be considered as an 'historic cultural landscape' and all major works and new developments in this area should be assessed in this context.

immediate/ urgent

2. 2 Carry out comprehensive historic heritage studies for areas of very high heritage value or potential as a matter of urgency, giving priority to areas which. The priorities for this (in order of priority) are the following high development potential areas - the Springs area, the Pinnacle area and the Junction Cabin area.

immediate/ urgent

2. 4 Undertake an assessment of landscape values as a matter of urgency, with the results to be incorporated into the Historic Heritage Place Inventory and management.

immediate/ urgent

4.1 Prepare and implement a Wellington Park Historic Heritage Management Strategy. The Strategy should consider and provide policy, protocols, procedures, prescriptions and other relevant guidance as appropriate for the conservation and management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park.

HIGH PRIORITY

high priority 1.9 The WPMT to hold a meeting of all Trust and agency staff who have a management responsibility for, or work in areas that may impact on, the historic heritage of Wellington Park to present the findings of the present project and provide advice on interim desired approaches to historic heritage management.

high priority 1.10 To promote the historic heritage of Wellington Park and it management needs to the public, the WPMT should consider a newspaper article that promotes the historic heritage of Wellington Park and informs the community of the present project and its findings.

high priority 1.11 The WPMT consider employing someone with appropriate heritage expertise for 6-12 months to undertake and assist the implementation of the urgent & immediate recommendations that require or could benefit from professional heritage expertise.

High priority 5.2 Retain, expand and formalise the Mountain Water Supply Heritage Working Group to consider and provide coordinated stakeholder advice in relation to the conservation of the MWSS.

High priority 5.5 All agency staff who are involved with the management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park at any level and who do not have heritage expertise should be provided with historic heritage awareness training.

High priority 5.6 All contractors and volunteers who will be working on historic heritage or in the area of historic heritage in Wellington Park should be provided with a basic pre-works induction to provide awareness about historic heritage conservation requirements generally & for the works being undertaken.

high priority 5.7 Field staff and community groups actively engaged in the heritage conservation of historic heritage sites must be provided with on-the-job training for the tasks they will be undertaking prior to commencing the conservation works independently.


87

MEDIUM PRIORITY

medium priority

2. 3 Carry out comprehensive historic heritage studies for other specified areas of identified heritage value &/or potential (sensitivity) as a research priority.

medium priority

2. 5 In relation to individual place research, carry out heritage studies of those places identified in this study as having state and/or possible higher level significance as a matter of priority, and of those places with possible state level significance as the next level of priority.

medium priority

3. 5 Upgrade all existing place records (hard copy records) into coherent place records, and develop place records for all places with more than basic level information.

medium priority

3. 6 Update the historical heritage information in the Wellington Park Tracks Database

medium priority

4.2 Review all subsidiary area plans for Wellington Park, document current historic heritage values information and revised advice for inclusion in the individual plans, and update as soon as possible.

medium priority

4.3 Review all management strategies for Wellington Park, document areas where recommendations, actions etc conflict with historic heritage conservation requirements and provide detailed advice to improve the protection and integration of historic heritage values in each strategy, and update as soon as possible.

medium priority

5.1 Develop an advisory capacity that includes external and independent heritage expert advice and be based on an evaluation of existing capacity.

medium priority

5.4 The WPMT should negotiate an historic heritage 'caretaker'/'heritage care' agreement with the Hobart Walking Club to provide routine maintenance for those historic tracks and other sites the Club is interested in maintaining. Training needs will need to be assessed and provided.

medium priority

6.2 Undertake a background review of appropriate themes for interpretation, and assess appropriate levels and styles of interpretation of the historic heritage in Wellington Park using professional heritage advice and recognising the constraints and opportunities in the light of the archaeological and remote nature of the heritage, its social and other cultural values and the reserved land context of Wellington Park.

medium priority

6.3 Update the WPMT Design & Infrastructure Manual to ensure the policy, design principles and prescriptions for historic heritage are appropriate for heritage conservation.

LOW PRIORITY

low priority (long term)

4.4 Review the effectiveness of the performance based approach of the WPMP as a protective mechanism for historic heritage, and make recommendations for improvements to the approach or alternative approaches if relevant.

low priority 5.8 Consideration should be given to providing specialist training in aspects of historic heritage conservation/management to select agency staff who work, or who potentially work, closely with historic heritage to enable them to carry out more technical heritage tasks.


88

low priority 5.9 The WPMT and/or the land management agencies should

organise and hold occasional and varied events to celebrate the historic heritage of Wellington Park, and to build community awareness and participation.

low priority 6.1 Interpretation of historic heritage in Wellington Park to be based on a general Interpretation Plan or Strategy for Wellington Park.

General Ongoing Actions

Priority Rec No. (refer

Section 4.1) Recommendation

ongoing -general

2. 1 Undertake appropriate studies as a matter of priority to identify additional historic heritage places in Wellington Park and to improve the level of knowledge for the identified places.

ongoing -general

3. 1 The historic heritage database will recognise and list all historic sites and precincts in Wellington Park (and adjacent) in such a manner that sites and precincts in Wellington Park can be easily identified for management purposes and the listing will be current.

ongoing -general

3. 2 Manage the historic heritage information on an ongoing basis. The information should be managed as a tripartite system (as specified).

ongoing -general

3. 3 The WPMT secretariat to act as heritage information coordinator and maintain, or have oversight of, the maintenance of the electronic data base and GIS historic heritage information.

ongoing -general

3.4 The confidentiality of sites will be respected where they are acknowledged as being sensitive or non-disclosure of information is otherwise required.

ongoing -general

5.3 Community groups with a particular and demonstrated interest in the historic heritage of Wellington Park should be included in the management of historic heritage in Wellington Park as key community stakeholders. Community groups who should be included in this category at present are the Hobart Walking Club, the Fern Tree Community Association and the New Norfolk Historical Society.


Sources


Publications, Reports, Etc

Abrahams, J. 2001 Wellington Park Mountain Huts Inventory. Report to the Wellington Park Management Trust, Hobart.

Appeldorf, G. 1986 Memories of Collinsvale. City of Glenorchy Bicentennial Committee assisted publication, Tasmania.

Australia ICOMOS 1999 The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter). (Revised edition)

Australia ICOMOS 2005 Historic Environment Vol 18 (2) – Mountains of Meaning.

Australian Garden History Association 2005 www.gardenhistorysociety.org.au/branches/ tasmania, 11/4/2005.

Aves, K. 1957 'Mount Wellington' (Part 2). Tasmanian Tramp No.13; pp37-44.

Buckman, G. 2000 Mt Wellington: Its History, Walks and Facilities. Advance Publicity, Hobart.

Chapman, G.T.F. 1934 'The Western Wellingtons: A new Overland Tramp in Untracked Country'. Tasmanian Tramp No. 3: pp20-23

City of Hobart 1982 City of Hobart Planning Scheme. Tasmania.

Commonwealth of Australia Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Crawford, P.G. & Ryan, K. 1988. The Early Water Supply of Hobart 1804-1904. Institute of Engineers Engineering Heritage Committee, Hobart.

Davies, R. 1972 'The Mount Wellington Huts'. Tasmanian Tramp No. 20; pp56-62.

Davies, R. 1984-85 'The Mount Wellington Waterworks'. Tasmanian Tramp No. 25; pp39-46.

de Quincey, E. 1987 The History of Mount Wellington – A Tasmania Sketchbook. Mercury Walsh, Hobart.

Department of Lands, Parks & Wildlife 1989 Glenorchy Water Reserve Wildlife Sanctuary Draft Management Plan 1989. Initial draft for consideration by interested authorities and Cabinet prior to public release, January 1989 (Confidential – provided by the WPMT).

Evans, K. 1996 Convict Sites Tasmanian Historical Research Project. Parks and Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 38, Department of Environment & Land Management, Tasmania.

Gadd, T. 1998 www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/mountain, 11/4/2005.

Gilfedder, F. 1995 Management of Exotic Plant Species in Natural Areas of the World Heritage Area: Stage 2 Final Report. Report to the Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service by Francine Gilfedder & Associates, Richmond, Victoria.

Glenorchy City Council 1992 Glenorchy Planning Scheme. Tasmania.

Grist, J. & Grist, M. 2003 Huts of Mount Wellington. Unpublished report, users.bigpond. net.au/jandmgrist/Full.htm. [1994 revised 2003]

Gulson, L. 2003 Assessment of Gardens and Cultural Landscape Values – The Exhibition Gardens, The Springs, Mount Wellington. Report to the Hobart City Council, Tasmania.

Hardy, J and Elson, B. 2003 Mount Wellington walks: a selection of day walks on the slopes of Mount Wellington and along the Wellington Range. Hillside Publishing, Hobart (revised edition).


Hartzell, L. 1993 Final Report for the Mt Wellington Pipeline Track Project: Historical and Archaeological Documentation of Sites and Features. Report to the Hobart City Council, Dept Parks & Recreation, Hobart.

Hepper, J. & de Gryse, J. 1994 Mt Wellington - Mountain Park Resource Inventory. Report to Corporation of the City of Hobart by 208 Network, Hobart, Tasmania.

Hewitt, M. 1989 ‘Finding the Panorama Track’. Tasmanian Tramp No 27; pp 40 -42.

Hingston, A., Jupe, B., MacDonald, A. & Steinhauser, A. 2001 Merton. Unpublished report, Centre for Environmental Studies, School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania.

Hobart City Council 1991 Hobart Mountain Park. Mount Wellington Management Working Party Report, May 1991.

Hobart Water 2002 Wellington Park Drinking Water Catchment Management Strategy. Prepared for Hobart Water by Water Ecoscience, New Town, Tasmania.

'Jimmie' 1934 ‘To Mount Arthur and Over the Landslip to Glenorchy'. Tasmanian Tramp No.3; p32-33.

Johnston, B. 1979 ‘Thark Hut’. Tasmanian Tramp No.23; pp.126-128.

Jones, A. 1989 Backsight; A history of surveying in colonial Tasmania. The Institution of Surveyors, Australia Inc (Tasmanian Division), Hobart.

Kingborough Council 1988 Kingborough Planning Scheme, Tasmania.

Lands Department 1966 Hobart Atlas.

Leaman, D. 2000 'Back of Wellington'. Tasmanian Tramp No.33; pp37-43.

Leaman, D. 2001 Step into History in Tasmanian Reserves. Leaman Geophysics, Hobart, Tasmania.

M.E.H. 1934 ‘The truth about the Lachlan trip’. Tasmanian Tramp No.3; p19.

Macfie, P. c.1994 'History and Cultural Values'. Unpublished material for the Wellington Park Management Plan prepared for Hepper & de Gryse (208 Network), Hobart.

McConnell, A. 2003 'Historic Heritage Management'. Contributory chapter to the Bushland Management Strategy being prepared by the Hobart City Council, Tasmania.

McConnell, A. & Scripps, L. 1998 Historical (European) Cultural Heritage Survey and Assessment for the Proposed West Hobart Redevelopment, Tasmania, by Transend Network Pty Ltd. Report to the Hydro Electric Corporation, Tasmania.

McConnell, A. & Scripps, L. 2005 Wellington Park Historic Heritage Audit: Assessment of the Historical Heritage of Upper Merton. Report for the Wellington Park Management Trust, Hobart.

McConnell, A., Stanton, S. & Scripps, L. 1998 Ridgeway Park, Hobart, Cultural Heritage Survey & Assessment, Volume 1- Main Report & Volume 2 - Appendices . Report to the Hobart City Council.

Municipality of New Norfolk 1993 New Norfolk Council Planning Scheme. Tasmania.

Murray, T. & Nieberler, K. 1994 Conservation and Management Plan for the Pipeline Track. Report to the City of Hobart, Tasmania.

Scripps, L. 1993a The Pipeline Track – Mt Wellington. Report to the Corporation of the City of Hobart, Department of Parks & Recreation, Hobart. (History).


Scripps, L. 1993b The New Town Rivulet Historical Study. Report for the Hobart City Council, Hobart, Tasmania.

Sheridan, G. 2004 A Report to the Resource Planning and Development Commission in Respect of the Proposed Development at the Springs Site, Mt Wellington. Unpublished report.

Southern Tasmanian Ski Association 2005 www.webbed.com.au/stsa/history, 11/4/2005.

Squires, G. 1998 ‘Victor’s Hut’. Tasmanian Tramp No. 32; pp 68-70.

Stoddart, E. 2004 The Mountain: A People's Perspective. Hobart City Council, Hobart.

Tasmanian Government Historical Cultural Heritage Act 1995.

Tasmap 1986 Holiday Atlas of Tasmania. Tasmap, Hobart.

Terry, I. 1994 Glenorchy Heritage Study Stage 1 – Thematic History. A report to the Glenorchy City Council.

Terry, I. 2001 The Springs Water Tank Proposal Archaeological & Heritage Assessment. A report to Brian Risby, Planning Consultant.

Terry, I. (in association with P. Davies) 2004 Glenorchy Heritage Place Assessment Project (Derwent Park, Glenorchy, Moonah) – Draft Inventories and Heritage Conservation Areas. A report to the Glenorchy City Council.

Thwaites, J. 1974 ‘The Mount Wellington Ice Houses’. Tasmanian Tramp No.21; pp82-85.

Thwaites, J. 1982-3 “Clement Wragge’s Observatory on Mt Wellington'. Tasmanian Tramp No. 24; pp 53-60.

Waight, S. 1995 Glenorchy Heritage Study Stage 2. Glenorchy City Council, Tasmania.

Wellington Park Management Trust 1996 Draft Wellington Park Values, Use & Management Inventory (for Public Comment). Wellington Park Management Trust, Hobart.

Wellington Park Management Trust 1997 Wellington Park Management Plan. Wellington Park Management Trust, Hobart.

Wellington Park Management Trust 1999 Draft Fire Management Strategy for Wellington Park. Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust by AVK Environmental Management and IFERM Pty Ltd, NSW.

Wellington Park Management Trust 2000 Wellington Park Bike Strategy. Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust by Inspiring Place, Hobart.

Wellington Park Management Trust 2001 Pinnacle Site Development Plan. Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust by Inspiring Place, Hobart.

Wellington Park Management Trust 2003 Wellington Park Walking Track Strategy. Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust and Wellington Park Walking Tracks Working Group by Inspiring Place, Hobart.

Wellington Park Management Trust 2004a Myrtle Forest Site Development Plan. Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust by Inspiring Place, Hobart, in collaboration with the Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania.

Wellington Park Management Trust 2004b Wellington Park Design & Infrastructure Manual. Prepared for the Wellington Park Management Trust by Megan Baynes.

Wellington Park Management Trust 2005 Wellington Park Management Plan. Draft (March 2005) with all deletions & additions; Wellington Park Management Trust, Hobart.


Wellington Park Management Trust & Hobart City Council 1998 Springs Site Development Plan.


Wellington Park Management Trust & Hobart City Council 2002 Springs Site Development Plan. (Amended version 2002).

Williams, G. 1955 ‘The Mount Wellington Go-as-you-please race’. Tasmanian Tramp No.12; pp16-17.

Wilson, M. 1934 ‘Rambles Around Hobart - Mt Wellington'. Tasmanian Tramp No.3; pp28-30.

Registers & Lists

Commonwealth Heritage List – Department of Environment & Heritage, Canberra, March 2005 (online).

National Heritage List - Department of Environment & Heritage, Canberra, March 2005 (online).

Register of the National Estate - Department of Environment & Heritage, Canberra, March 2005 (online).

Schedules of Heritage Items & Areas - City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, the Glenorchy Planning Scheme 1992, the Kingborough Planning Scheme (1988) and the New Norfolk Council [Derwent Valley] Planning Scheme (1993), as well as lists of places nominated to the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 Heritage Schedule but not yet listed (as of the end of 2004).

Tasmanian Heritage Register – Tasmanian Heritage Office, Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage & the Arts, November 2004 (listing from A. Todd).

Tasmanian Historical Places Inventory – Heritage Tasmania, Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage & the Arts, February 2005.

Wellington Park Tracks Database – Wellington Park Management Trust, from P. Franklin February 2005.

Special Collections & Documents Related to Wellington Park/Mt Wellington

Cornish, Ted. 1969a Early Mt Wellington Huts. Unpublished manuscript with photographs. (Copy held by WPMT).

Cornish, Ted. 1969b History [of a] Bushwalking Hut, Mt Wellington, Tasmania. Unpublished manuscript with photographs. (Copy held by WPMT).

Davies, R. (c.1970s) Mt Wellington Huts Photograph Collection (2 albums). In possession of family (loaned courtesy of Alison O'Brien, Moonah, May 2005). (Note: vol 2 of photos has been sourced from the S. (Sam) Nicholson Collection via David Wilson (who also hold s a collection/& Walter Nicholson also has a collection)).

Fitzgerald, J. (nd) Wellington Park Historic Huts Collection (1 album). (Loaned courtesy of Jill Fitzgerald, South Hobart, March 2005). (Note: a number of the photos in the collection have been sourced from D. Wilson's Collection).

Knott, M. (c.1970s/1980s) Wellington Park Historic and Recent Photograph Collection (1 album). (Loaned courtesy of Max Knott, Nubeena, March 2005).


ARCHIVAL & OTHER DOCUMENTARY

Written information (consultation feedback to the current project) . Rick Calitz – 2004/2005 – current project consultation feedback (map with notes).

. Michael Easton – 5/8/2005 – Re: Management Plan – Heritage Exemptions – email to A. McConnell.

. Tom & Robin Errey – 17/2/2005 – Notes for the Wellington Park Historic Heritage Audit & Inventory Project.

. Hobart Walking Club – 7/9/2005 – Submission: Wellington Park Historic Heritage Audit Project Part 3.

. Kevin Wilson – 8/2//2005 – current project consultation feedback (map with notes).

. Bob Wyatt – 13/3/2005 – Re: Mt Wellington Historic Features – email to A. McConnell as current project consultation feedback.

Miscellaneous . Lindsay Ashlin (HCC, Mountain Park Crew) – 14/3/2005 – Heritage Place Report for Sandstone Drain on Milles Track.

. John Chick – no date –Mt Wellington Tracks map, Wellington Folios (copy provided by F. Lakin, Taroona).

. City of Hobart (WA Hurle, Town Clerk) – letter of 18th March 1968 – to Mr E.G. Cornish.

. Hobart Walking Club 1931 'Mt Wellington Park Map of Roads, Tracks, Etc.; revised 8/10/1931 by V.W. Hodgeman.

. Hobart Walking Club 1942 'Sketch Map of Mt Wellington'; drawn 7/12/1942 by R.N.S. Ron Smith); traced 3/2/1956 by P.B.R.

. Map of part of Mountain Park at 1;15,000 with historic place locations noted by Alan Wiggins (provided by I. Wolfe).

. Tasmanian Mail - 25 September 1909, p. 17.

. Ian Terry – 22/4/2002 – Re: Back to Merton Days (17/3/2002 & 21/4/2002) – letter to S. Waight, Glenorchy City Council.

. Wellington Park Management Trust (document held by WPMT) – Jan 1985 – Mt Wellington – Gazetteer of Interesting Features (no source).

. Alan Wiggins – no date – map of historic huts sites for Mountain Park area (copy provided by Ivan Wolfe, Mountain Park, HCC).

Archives Office of Tasmania [AOT] . Local government records [AOT MCC – various numbers].

. Applications for Registration of Sawmill [AOT FC 19].

. Letter from Piguenit to the authorities - 1869 [AOT, LSD 1/72, p.7].


. Tasmanian Conservation Trust 1974 ‘Existing structures at the Pinnacle’ in ‘Wellington Summit: An Environmental Survey of the Pinnacle area of Mt Wellington (draft report) [AOT 1378/35].

. Tasmanian Conservation Trust (nd) Wellington Range Study; Correspondence File: Map ‘Pinnacle – Existing; Pinnacle Phase 2 [AOT NS 1378/36].

. Plan of The Springs area and The Springs Hotel (1909/1944) - MCC 16/2/253; DR 109/247 Springs Hotel Access Road.

. Plan of The Springs area and The Springs Hotel - MCC 16/2/1/253, DR 109/247 Mountain Park Springs Hotel Vol 10.

Lands & Surveys Department Files [AOT] . Alex Cheyne to George Frankland (Surveyor General) 6 March 1837, memo, and 19 June 1837

. Correspondence file LSD 1/72, p.7 - Piguenit to Surveyor-General (1869).

Maps/Plans (chronological order) . Sprent's 1846 map

. Survey Plan 11/46 (1869) [DPIWE]

. Buckingham Plan 115 (1875) [DPIWE]

. County Chart Buckingham (c.1890s) [DPIWE? or AOT (TCT File)]

. Buckingham Plan 131 (1903) [DPIWE]

. North Buckingham No.2 (1957) [DPIWE]

. South Buckingham No.1 (1959) [DPIWE]

. North Buckingham No.1 (1965) [DPIWE]

. Buckingham Plan 44 [DPIWE]

Aerial Photography (chronological order) . Hobart - Run ? (pre-1958) (1946?)

. Hobart - Run 12 (1958)

. Hobart Area - Run 2A (1968)

ORAL INTERVIEWS

Oral Interviews – taped (as part of Stoddard, E. 2001) . Tom Adkins – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH08TA).

. Val Baker (nee Gray) – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH05VB).

. Charles Bucher – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH06CB).

. Jim Cadel – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH09JC).

. Ted Cornish – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH01TC).

. Les Daly– by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH07LD).


. Roy and Kath Davies – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH02KRD).

. Dr John Hickman – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH13JH).

. Fred Lakin – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH20FL).

. Jesse Luckman – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH03JL).

. Walter Nicholson – Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH04WN).

. Mildred Saunders – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH19MS).

. Fred Underwood – by Emily Stoddart (2001, interview WPMT OH14FU).

Oral information (by McConnell, 2005, as part of the current project) . Mike Bidwell, GCC – 8/12/2004 & 18/2/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project) as part of a HWC Mt Wellington Historic Huts & Tracks walk.

. Martin Daley, Fern Tree – 15/3/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. Liz Dombrovskis (nee Officer), Fern Tree – 18/2/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. Tom & Robin Errey, Fern Tree – 29/8/2005 - Notes for the Wellington Park Historic Heritage Audit & Inventory Project.

. Grant Hall, Ranger in Charge, Parks & Wildlife Service – 18/3/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. Blane & Jill Fitzgerald, South Hobart – 20/3/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project) as part of a HWC Mt Wellington Historic Huts & Tracks walk.

. Kevin Kiernan, Fern Tree – 18/2/2005 & 25/5/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. Max Knott, Tasman Peninsula (former Mountain Park Field Supervisor) – 21/3/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. Fred Lakin, Taroona – 20/3/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project) as part of a HWC Mt Wellington Historic Huts & Tracks walk; and 26/8/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. David Leaman, Bellerive Town – 26/8/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. Jesse Luckman, New Town – 25/8/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. Jane & Heinz Maarseveen, South Hobart – 27/2/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project) at the Fern Tree Festival.

. Brian Marriott, Fern Tree –9/3/2005 –to A. McConnell (this project) at the Fern Tree Community Association project consultation meeting.

. Lyn Massie, Chigwell (bushwalker) – 21&25/5/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. New Norfolk Historical Society – 24/2/2005 – information provided to A. McConnell (this project) at one of the regular meetings.

. Dorothy Robertson, Collinsvale – 24/2/2005 –to A. McConnell (this project) at New Norfolk Historical Society meeting.

. Judy Sprent, Fern Tree – 15/3/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).

. Di Williams (nee Officer), at Fern Tree –– 18/2/2005 to A. McConnell (this project).

. Ivan Wolfe, Mountain Park Field Supervisor, HCC – 9/3/2005 – to A. McConnell (this project).


FIELD INSPECTION

. Upper Merton – A. McConnell & L. Scripps (this project), 8/12/2004, with Mike Bidwell & Sarah Waight.

. East Face Mt Wellington as part of a HWC Mt Wellington Historic Huts & Tracks walk –A. McConnell (this project), 20/3/2005, walk lead by Fred Lakin and Blane Fitzgerald.

. Mountain Water Supply System (St Crispins Well to Upper Reservoir) – A. McConnell (this project), 24/2/2005 & 15/6/2005, as part of the Mountain Water Supply Heritage Working Group inspection and related.

_______________________________


Appendices


APPENDIX 1 PROJECT BRIEF TASKS AND TASK REQUIREMENTS

The Project Brief detailed the following project tasks and the accompanying detail on how each task was to be carried out. –

1. Cultural heritage inventory Research and prepare an audit of the historic heritage values (including sites and resources)

of the study area, which builds upon existing known sources, including the Wellington Park Values, Use and Management Inventory 1996 and other relevant documentation.

In doing the above, identify and analyse all available published and unpublished information regarding historic heritage values.

Provide recommendations as to what further ground truthing is required for any of the identified values, sites and resources. The requirement for any further ground truthing will be discussed with the Project Steering Committee (PSC) prior to action.

Identify what further information is required to inform future directions planning and the conservation and management of historic heritage.

2. Identification of cultural heritage values

1. From the audit, identify and assess the historic, archaeological, visual and aesthetic values (including landscape values), and other social and community heritage values in relation to the heritage sites and resources:

2. In the above, liaise with community stakeholders (as identified in consultation with the PSC) to determine any additional sites and resources.

3. In particular, identify the value and significance of the old Merton township built and vegetative fabric, to enable such values to be taken into account in the implementation of fire, weed and drinking water catchment management strategies within the Park.

4. Provide a list of sites and artefacts that, based upon existing information, have no heritage significance or value.

3. Recommendations for management

1. Based upon the above, recommend sites and/or areas that, on current knowledge, are suitable for designation as heritage sites/precincts (in the context of the WPMP) within the Park, and for listing on relevant external heritage lists and registers.

2. Recommend any appropriate urgent/immediate heritage issues and management recommendations for all identified heritage resources, and identify any conflicts that exist or may arise with actions contained in other Park management strategies.

3. Identify a suitable management approach to the old Merton township, particularly as it relates to the management of fire and introduced species within the area.

4. Recommend any specific and/or thematical interpretation opportunities related to cultural heritage resources within the Park.


4. Education and Awareness 1. Provide recommendations for the future education opportunities of all management

stakeholders both within and outside of the Park, regarding the conservation and management of cultural heritage.

2. Identify further educational or research opportunities relating to cultural heritage activities within the Park.

___________________________________________


APPENDIX 2

Making Decisions about Heritage Place Management – Overview of Framework

A policy of the WPMP in relation to historic heritage is the "conservation and management will adhere to the Burra Charter". The audit and management assessment carried out by the present project indicates that there is however a lack of understanding of what this entails and of some of the basic principles of the Burra Charter. To assist managers understand the obligations for, and processes and approaches to, historic heritage management arising from the Burra Charter, the key elements of the Burra Charter are summarised below. The following principles are highly pertinent to the Management Analysis and Management Advice provided in Parts 3 and 4 of this report.

Framework The main framework for making decisions about the management of places of cultural significance in Australia is the Australia ICOMOS (1999) Burra Charter. The key principles of the Burra Charter that relate to making decisions about the management of heritage places are Articles 2 to 13 and Article 26. In essence these are (not necessarily in the Burra Charter order) – 1. Places of cultural significance should be conserved (with the aim of conservation being to retain

the cultural significance of the place). 2. Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable

state. 3. Conservation requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary, but as little as

possible. 4. Conservation of a place should be based on respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and

meanings of the place. 5. Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting and other relationships that

contribute to the cultural significance of the place. 6. The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. 7. Contents, fixtures and objects which contribute to the cultural significance of a place should be

retained at that place. 8. The contribution which related places and objects make to the cultural significance of a place

should be retained. 9. Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute

to the study and care of the place. 10. Competent direction and supervision should be maintained at all stages of conservation, and any

changes to a place should be implemented by people with appropriate knowledge and skills. 11. Conservation of a place should identify and take into consideration all aspects of cultural and

natural significance without unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others. 12. The policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance

(and policy development should also consider other relevant factors such as the owner's needs, resources, external constraints and the condition of the place).


13. Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.

14. The place should have a compatible use. 15. Conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of

people for whom the place has special associations and meanings or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place.

16. Co-existence of cultural values should be recognised, respected and encouraged, especially in cases where they conflict.

17. Work on a place should be preceded by studies to understand the place and should include analysis of physical, documentary, oral and other evidence, drawing on appropriate knowledge, skills and disciplines.

18. A written statement of cultural significance and policy for a place should be prepared, justified and accompanied by supporting evidence. The significance and policy statement should be incorporated into a management plan for the place.

19. Groups and individuals with associations with a place, as well as those involved in its management, should be provided with opportunities to contribute to, and participate in, understanding the cultural significance of a place. Where appropriate they should also have opportunities to participate in its conservation and management.

The Burra Charter also sets out a process for making decisions about a place which is in essence to –

identify the Place and its associations (and ensure it is not at risk), gather and record information about the place sufficient to understand significance, assess cultural significance (and prepare a statement of significance), develop a policy for managing/conserving the place (including identifying obligations

arising from the significance and identifying other obligations, constraints and interests) (prepare a written statement of policy), and

manage the place in accordance with the policy (including monitoring & review).

This is the framework that is used throughout Australia for managing historic heritage places. To the greatest extent possible, this is the framework that should be being used for managing historic heritage in Wellington Park, particularly given the WPMP policy to 'adhere to the Burra Charter'.

It should be noted however that the Burra Charter guidelines have been developed for managing places that are primarily of cultural significance, and does not deal to a significant extent with the management of places with multiple values or conflicting management requirements, which will be the case for parts of Wellington Park. Although it might not be possible to follow the guidelines exactly in such cases, they will still provide useful guidance for determining appropriate management.

Values Based Management The approach taken by the Burra Charter is termed 'values based management'. As can be seen from the above, the management of the place is strongly directed by the significance or values of the place. This is a logical approach if the aim of conservation is to retain cultural significance. The approach also requires that the physical nature of the place, its history and its meanings and associations for the community are well understood before significance is assessed. Inadequate understanding of a place can lead to an incorrect assessment of significance, and since management is based on significance, then this may lead to inappropriate management of the place.

Understanding the significance of the place is therefore critical to management. Consequently it is important to understand how significance is assessed and to ensure all aspects of significance that


are relevant have been assessed. To assist managers to ensure this is done, the Burra Charter has a separate guideline for assessing cultural significance.

It is also important to understand what cultural significance means. The Burra Charter definition of cultural significance is "aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past present or future generations". It notes that cultural significance is embodied "in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects".

Management Options There are a range of legitimate options for managing a historic heritage place. What option is taken will depend on the cultural significance of the place (refer 'Framework' and 'Values Based Management', above).

The options that are available are – benign neglect (do nothing in particular either positive or negative) maintenance * (continuous protective care – but essentially no intervention in the fabric) preservation * (maintaining the fabric in its existing state and retarding deterioration) restoration * (returning the existing fabric to a known earlier state) reconstruction * (returning the existing fabric to a known earlier state but involving the

introduction of new materials) adaptation * (modification of a place to suit an existing (non-historic) or new use) interpretation * (all forms of presentation) destruction.

The above list reflects increasing levels of intervention. Only the asterisked options are recognised in the Burra Charter as appropriate actions for conserving places of cultural significance. In all cases, even in the case of so-called 'benign neglect', the action that is taken should be based on a well thought through policy based on the Burra Charter process of understanding the place and its significance. All the above options are potential options for the historic heritage in Wellington Park. Deliberately adopting any of the above options for management without being able to justify it in sound management terms (ie, as per the Burra Charter process) is not acceptable heritage management practice.

Benign neglect is in many cases the real management option taken by land managers – especially where land managers have a large area to manage, a large number of sites to manage and limited resources. It is a more appropriate option for archaeological sites and advanced ruins because they have deteriorated to a point where management intervention can do little to help preserve the place and the place has gone beyond restoration. Destruction of historic heritage also happens. While this is in general undesirable, there are situations where the conservation of other values or other uses is seen as more important than conserving the site. Examples of this occur in essentially natural areas where cultural heritage is seen as inappropriate and natural values and/or wildness quality restoration as more important. Examples also occur in urban areas where there is a high use imperative. Whenever destruction occurs, actions such as salvage archaeology or relocation of elements will be considered, and if necessary/desirable, undertaken to minimise the loss of significance.


APPENDIX 3 PROJECT CONSULTATION SUMMARY

This appendix contains a summary description of the project consultation approach and a summary of responses, including feedback regarding historic heritage management.

Approach to Consultation

As per the Project Brief requirement, the consultation carried out by the project was 'targeted' community and stakeholder consultation, rather than broad based, open consultation. The project however attempted to consult with the range of relevant agencies, organisations and individuals, and through this gain some understanding of local community.

The aim of the consultation was to add to the knowledge of the heritage resource of Wellington Park, to assist in the significance assessment of the known heritage, and to help identify management issues, opportunities and requirements for the heritage. Since the project has been essentially an audit, the community consultation has been directed at improving the quality of the inventory and audit and not at achieving a full social values assessment.

The project consultation approach has been as follows -

Consultation with the land management agencies – was undertaken primarily for identifying management responsibilities and issues, although information on known heritage in and near Wellington Park was also sought. This is has comprised 1) an initial letter to advise of the project and to ask for input, 2) follow up interviews where deemed useful and 3) a multi-agency meeting, including with agency historic heritage staff, to evaluate current management of the historic heritage of Wellington Park and to explore issues and opportunities in relation to this (refer Summary of Responses, part 2, below). The initial letter sent out asked for information about existing heritage management arrangements, heritage management issues they have identified, and any other management concerns and included a proforma asking for information about sites and their values (where known).

Consultation with relevant municipalities – was undertaken for similar reasons as the consultation with the land management agencies. Councils consulted were the Hobart City Council, the Glenorchy City Council, Derwent Valley Council, Huon Valley Council, and Kingborough Council. Those councils which are not Wellington Park management agencies were an sent initial letter which asked for information about existing heritage management arrangements and any heritage management concerns they have identified, and included a proforma asking for information about sites and their values (where known). The various Councils were also contacted to ensure relevant local community organisations were included in the community consultation (see below).

Consultation with relevant statutory management agencies – was undertaken to seek information about listings/holdings relating to Wellington Park, statutory obligations, and any other management issues. Consultation was by way of a letter which also introduced the project. No follow up work was required in relation to this consultation.


Consultation with community interest groups – was seen as essential for identifying and assessing historic heritage places for the inventory, especially in identifying aesthetic and social values, cultural landscape elements and heritage precincts and areas. Recognised local area groups (eg, community associations and Bushcare/Landcare groups) or special interest type groups (eg, walking groups, history/heritage related groups) were the focus of this consultation. Identified groups were contacted by letter to advise them of the project and to ask for comment. Questionnaires (with maps) were enclosed for people to identify historic heritage values they were aware of & provide views on the management of the historic heritage, and the groups were asked to provide these to interested group members. The Glenorchy City Council mailed out a questionnaire and covering letter to each person/household in those Precinct Groups fringing Wellington Park in their municipality.

Consultation with key individuals – select individuals identified as having a depth of knowledge regarding the history and historic heritage of Wellington Park56 were interviewed to help identify historic heritage and to provide information on the history and significance of the places. All individuals identified and who could be contacted were happy to be interviewed. This component of the targeted consultation has been extremely important given the limited historic heritage knowledge for Wellington Park at the start of the project. A small number of other people were also encountered with a good knowledge of one or a few heritage places or an area with heritage values. These people were also interviewed in person or by phone. Towards the end of the project a small number of individuals with considerable heritage place knowledge were asked to comment on the draft project inventory to add to and check the heritage place information.

Consultation on the draft report – copies of Part 3 (Management Assessment and Advice) of the draft project report were provided to members of the project Steering Committee as representatives of the various Wellington Park management agencies and relevant statutory agencies, and to those other agencies, councils, organisations and individuals that were consulted in the initial phase and expressed interest in reviewing a draft of the report. On this basis, the following agencies, organisations and individuals were given an opportunity to comment on the draft analysis and recommendations – the Wellington Park Management Trust, Hobart City Council, Glenorchy City Council, Parks & Wildlife Service, Heritage Tasmania, New Norfolk Historical Society, Fern Tree Community Association and the Hobart Walking Club.

Prior to starting the consultation, the project developed a draft consultation plan which was finalised in discussion with the Project Steering Committee. Overall more than 190 letters and questionnaires were sent out to groups and individuals. A copy of a generic project consultation letter and the accompanying questionnaire is provided as an attachment to this appendix.

Summary of Responses

Except for the Wellington Park management agencies and key individuals interviewed, the response from the consultation has been extremely limited (see Consultation Record, below). The information about historic heritage places, which in contrast was considerable, has been incorporated into the project inventory and is not presented again here. The other information related mainly to the management of the historic heritage and this is summarised below to provide background to the management assessment discussion in Part 3 of the report. This comment is summarised in two parts –

56 People who have provide this information in the oral histories undertaken by E. Stoddart will not be contacted unless it is believed that they have significant additional information or can contribute substantially to the assessment of values.


20. general comment about management (comment on the draft report is incorporated into the Management Analysis section of Part 3 of the report and is not included here), and

21. comment from the June 2005 agency Management Evaluation Meeting.

1. Management – General Comment

The following comment is derived from consultation with the community based organisations and individuals. It also includes views on management articulated by oral history interviewees (mainly Val Baker, Ted Cornish, and Roy & Kath Davies) as part of the oral history project undertaken by Emily Stoddard. Comment made by agency staff consulted outside the Management Evaluation Meeting in June is included here, but comprises a very minor part of the overall comment. Each dot point represents the view of a single respondent.

Framework Requirements for Heritage Management

Comments Balancing Management There is a 'back' and 'front' of the mountain. There is a perception that the back side is more

neglected management-wise than the front. The tripartite land management approach is the only way management of Wellington Park is

going to work – the HCC is not going to give up the face of the Mountain.

Definition of Roles and Responsibilities There is a lack of clarity about what is whose responsibility (especially in relation to the

MWSS). This also with respect to the responsibilities of people in various positions (eg, when to approach the Bushland Manager and when to approach the WPMT Manager). Responsibilities need to be clearly established.

Community Involvement There is a need to build community awareness of historic heritage and its management. The 'Back to Merton Day' was a good activity for engaging community interest (and there

was good participation by people with an historical association) The HWC has kept alive knowledge of many of the places on the Mountain (huts and

tracks) through club trips. The HWC has been responsible for keeping open (and re-opening) access to parts of the

Mountain through maintaining and reopening old tracks. The HWC has helped women (and people of all ages) walk and get out of the house, and the

walks on Mt Wellington have been important in this. Walking clubs are important in facilitating the access of women to the Mountain by running

walks attractive to women (pace and timing). There is an issue in community input which is that people only tend to notice things when

they change, which means that most community responses are reactive – which is too late to enable anything to be done to improve the matter from a community perspective. The other side of the coin is that it can probably be assumed that people are reasonably happy if they don't complain.

Need for Access to Expertise Staff training is a key issue – staff need to be trained 1. so that they know what to in relation

to heritage sites and can avoid negatively impacting on the heritage; and 2. so they know how to repair and maintain sensitive historic structures like the MWSS.

Resourcing The WPMP sets out the need for managing a whole spectrum of values that occur in the

landscape – the land management agencies do not have the resources to manage at this level. Improved funding is also needed for the active management of historic heritage. Some land management agencies are in a more difficult position than others as management of Wellington Park has not traditionally been a responsibility.

Heritage Site Management – General

Comments Heritage Information Biggest issue is not knowing what historic heritage is there. Better cultural heritage identification is needed.


In managing data, in particular using a computer data base, need to ensure that there are some access controls so that sensitive sites are not put at risk because information about them and their location is easily accessible.

Heritage Management Options The values of sites such as these [various sites at the Springs and the MWSS] is largely in

their significance to society at the time, and we suggest their re-creation is not as high a priority as comprehensive recordings of their place in the continuum of man's interrelationship with 'the Mountain'.

The Mountain hut sites recreate the atmosphere of the old times and bring the past into the future – we need to preserve them in the best way we can.

Feel it is better not to make historic places public - reduces vandalism and it is better to let people find sites themselves – and maintain the oral tradition of handing down knowledge for the Wellington Park places.

Maintenance The management of Wellington Park has gone backwards in the last c.15-20 years – no

maintenance occurs now. [HCC area] Routine maintenance (especially of the MWSS) was really wound back about 15 years ago. The HCC is trying to re-establish a higher level of routine maintenance. A good thing about the WPMT is that they are now getting maintenance done.

Monitoring Concern that on the north & west side of the mountain that there is inadequate checking

(monitoring) of sites and conditions generally. [Possibly a responsibility that could be carried out by the community – which would reduce the access issue].

Risk Assessment Better risk assessment is needed.

Vandalism Vandalism is not particular problem, but it does occur and is focussed at places like the

Springs where there is road access [HCC area]. Artefact hunters do not seem to be a particular problem – it is low level and mostly for

machinery associated with the sawmills [PWS area]. Bicycle access does not appear to have led to an increase in vandalism. Vandalism is a problem and has become more of a problem in the last c.15-20 years as the

HCC presence in the area has been reduced. [HCC area] Concerned bout vandalism of tracks, sites and vegetation if more places are opened up (eg,

in c.70 years there has only been 3 occurrences of vandalism at Lakins Lair because it is not known about).

Access There are access issues on the north & west side of the mountain – locals can't get permits

for vehicles, so it is hard to go and visit or find out about historic places – seen as an inappropriate restriction on community access to their heritage.

Controlling access is essential to controlling other impacts [for the north and south of the Park].

Use & Development Historically the HWC hated trail bikes in tracks as the Park was seen as 'walker territory'. Concerned about push bikes and walkers together on narrow tracks. The 'ultimate respect' for the Park in new developments is to minimise environmental

damage, and to complement the natural surroundings by the use of local materials. Please no more inappropriate development. Leave it as it is.

Tracks: Concerned about closure of tracks that have historic and/or social values (particular track of

concern at this time was the track to the Pillinger Drive Reservoir; the closure of Reids Track was of concern previously).

Bicycle use appears to have led to increased track erosion. Management needs for historic tracks are not being considered by the Track Walking

Group. The historic tracks need to be kept open (clear of vegetation but not necessarily open to use)

otherwise they will become untraceable – a key need is to remove vegetation from the track


surfaces. WPMT could do this through a community based approach such as an 'adopt-a-track' type system.

Some interested HWC members carry out low level maintenance (keeping small vegetation down when they are walking the tracks) – feel this is important to keeping tracks open but that their position in doing this ambiguous – therefore would like this to be put on a more formal/acknowledge basis.

Concern on the minor and historic walking tracks that there is sufficient WPMT maintenance to clear tree throws on a regular basis as if this doesn't happen the tracks get re-routed around the obstacle and consequently the vegetation gets trampled and the original track alignment changes.

Weeds: What I found disturbing was the weediness round all sites where humans have access,

particularly the Springs and Fern Tree [observation on walk from Pinnacle to Fern Tree]. Management of these weeds is very profoundly or the Park could lose its character very easily.

Heritage Site Management – Specific Site Issues

Comments The Springs: The history and heritage at the Springs really needs to be properly addressed before any

development occurs there. Understanding the archaeology of the area is seen as a key area for more work at the Springs.

The uses of the Springs needs more thought. Don't mind something being there – there have always been buildings there. What is important is what is developed there – and what is there should be educational.

A lovely picnic spot and area with remains of gardens and early buildings that shouldn't be built on. There should be no development of hotels, shops, cable cars, car parks, etc; instead the area should be rehabilitated in keeping with its early historical uses and heritage.

Silver Falls: The development at Silver Falls (mainly the visitor access and safety infrastructure) over the

last c.30 years detracts from the site – it is 'shoddy work', dislike was expressed for the amount of concrete and the 'steel fence', and the comment was made 'who would visit Silver Falls now'? Would like to see the presentation of the area improved (restored to the original or historic feel) – including seeing the necessary work done in sandstone. The FTCA was concerned when the work was being proposed/started and went to see HW, but this made little difference.

Fern Tree Bower: Don't like the post-1960s structures- regards them as ugly and not in keeping with the place

(eg, horrible concrete tank abomination, ugly work shed, picnic alcoves have been changed (no fireplace and divider has been made more solid – less friendly) – should be changed back).

Could be upgraded –it is a lovely place to sit but there are no seats, and is a nice short walk; would like to see a new shelter for people (similar style to old?), but no need for toilets as they would take away the feeling of naturalness.

Pipeline Track: The chicanes are ugly –should use better aesthetic ways of doing it. What hasn't been

considered but should be is how dangerous the chicanes are in the dark. The chicanes are ugly – can't see why they are needed.

Upper Merton Keen to see it opened up as a walking destination.

Montrose Trail Area: Members of the Gordon family should be consulted in relation to the management of this

area (the original family farms and the Montrose Trail which was the farm road access). Jeffery's Track Jeffery's Track has a lot of management issues. These mainly relate to access and flow on


activities (eg, vandalism).

Other Comment

Comments General: Mt Wellington is a real treasure. At a minimum there is a need to make sure things don't go backwards (not sure that they can

go backwards given how little is done at present). Natural Values: There are platypus in many of the creeks on the south & east faces of the Mountain – these

need to be protected. There are yabbies in the creeks (at least between Brushy Creek Rivulet and Hobart Rivulet)

that need to be protected. Goat Hills have tall trees which should be protected. Myrtle Forest has remains of ancient trees and unspoilt mountain water holes (and possibly

wedge tailed eagle and white goshawk nesting sites) that should be preserved

2. Management – Comment from June 2005 Management Evaluation Meeting

The following summarises the comment from the project Management Evaluation Meeting held on the 20th June 2005 and attended by representatives of agencies with on-ground heritage management responsibility. Participants were – Michael Easton (WPMT), Rob Easton (HCC), Brendan Lennard (HCC), Grant Hall (PWS), Jo Lyngcoln (PWS), Sarah Waight (GCC), Mike Bidwell (GCC), & Lara Vandenberg (HW). The meeting was facilitated by Anne McConnell.

The 2 hour meeting was in essence a SWOT analysis of historic heritage management for Wellington Park. Participants were asked to consider how well or otherwise historic heritage was being managed in specified management areas (see headings in summary table below) and were asked to identify issues and opportunities for improved management in these areas. There was a consistency of views across the agencies and areas of management interest, and most points put forward were agreed to by all participants. Comments with an asterisk are important areas that need further consideration and resolution.

Heritage Identification Current Situation We only have a very poor level of knowledge of what the heritage resource/values are

and where they are (and this is still a major limiting factor post-inventory because of the quality of the data available).

The historic heritage has been identified mainly from remote sources (historical literature and oral information) rather than on-ground survey – there is still a need for on-ground survey.

Desirable Future Directions & Needs

Improving the historic heritage information available for managing the historic heritage. Ground truthing of places identified in the inventory. Given the current level of identification of resources there is a need to be aware and to

take into account in deciding that even though an area is shown as having no heritage, or has no demonstrated heritage values, heritage may be present and/or the place it may have heritage value.

Clear identification of what is and isn't heritage (especially important in respect of areas or complex heritage sites such as the MWSS) (see also Heritage Data Management).

Need management protocols that give guidance on what to do for places that have limited information where there is intervention (planned or unplanned) (the WPMP does this to a limited degree/in a general manner).


Active Conservation (Repair, Maintenance, etc) Current Situation Neglect – essentially nothing happens in this respect and no provisions for determining

what is needed. The exceptions are the MWSS (which has 1. a CMP which includes a works schedule; & 2. the HW Standard Operating Procedures), and the recent 'upgrading' of Radfords Monument. (Note – neglect is not the same as the management option of 'benign neglect' which implies that a decision has been made after following the Burra Charter process).


Requires direction/policy as to what should happen in this respect. Training and education for all staff (see heritage education/interpretation, below). A consistent approach to dealing with repairs and on-site operations. Also need information about costs of different conservation options.

Monitoring Heritage Condition Current Situation No monitoring of cultural heritage values occurring at present.

Other monitoring at present is for the walking tracks; PWS monitoring of human behaviour which is a key issue in their area; and HW on ground catchment management inspections – these may provide opportunities for integration of historic heritage monitoring.


Monitoring of heritage condition agreed to be a necessary aspect of heritage management.

Would be more likely to occur if the historic heritage is regarded as an asset and included in agency asset registers.

Consider utilising existing opportunities – eg, review while other monitoring/inspection is occurring (eg, post fire inspections, tracks, water supply, human use in PWS areas) and utilising the potential for community feedback.

Post fire inspections are seen as particularly useful, and also an opportunity for heritage identification. On-ground survey and post-fire air photo interpretation suggested as assessment & identification techniques. Would need to be undertaken by heritage experts.

There is a need for agency staff training in heritage recognition and condition assessment, particularly if monitoring is undertaken as part of other monitoring/inspection.

Heritage Education / Interpretation Current Situation No clear view about what should be interpreted or how this is best done (don't have a

grand plan or vision). Currently limited to historic heritage interpretation at the Springs, and on part of the

Pipeline Track, through books such as The Mountain: A People's Perspective, and through the HCC walk along the Pipeline Track (an on request tour).

As with the monitoring there is other interpretation/education that occurs that could include historic heritage, but currently doesn't (eg, HW schools program, HCC summer interpretation program at the Springs & Myrtle Forest).

Two 1 day cultural heritage awareness courses have been held for HCC and HW staff with responsibilities for water catchment/asset, bushland or urban park management.


Historic heritage interpretation should be based on an informed, strategic approach, ideally integrated with other values and considerations via a Wellington Park Interpretation Plan.

A strategic approach needs to identify themes for interpretation, modes of delivery and appropriate/inappropriate locations.

There is a need for education as well as interpretation. This needs to be provided at 2 levels – 1. for the public; and 2. for agency staff.

Options for community oriented historic heritage education and interpretation that should be considered include – Mountain Festival, HCC & PWS targeted interpretation programs at specific locations, 'Back to' days, Hobart Walking Club walks, HW schools


education program. Most of these are existing opportunities that can be built on. (Note – interestingly the options put forward are not for fixed interpretation at heritage places, although the appropriateness of different styles of interpretation was not discussed).

Risks/impacts will need to be considered, in particular impacts from increased visitation.

Heritage Data Management Current Situation No current system in place as there has been very limited data (the existing data has been

held in an appendix of the 1994 Resources Inventory).


Historic heritage data should be managed by the WPMT (note - this relates to the process of data updating, maintenance and distribution and doesn't necessarily imply data holding).

* No clear view about where the hard copy data is held (comments included - WPMT could collate hard copy data but not keen to hold it; there should be a central repository; each agency has a different way of handling heritage data that may need to be accommodated).

Must not underestimate the value of paper based information and retention of that information – it has a useful role as the primary data base form which electronic databases can be updated.

Data should be fed into the State centralised databases (THPI, and the THR if relevant). Need for a GIS based system (ie, a historic heritage layer) (the WPMT and HW both

have GIS systems that could be used; HW uses the GIS as a major management tool and having a historic heritage layer would significantly improve its ability to manage for this value).

Historic heritage data needs to be accessible to all the agencies and to a range of staff within the agencies.

A certain level of data needs to be made available to contractors working in Wellington Park who are working in or near areas of known historic heritage or whose activities potentially impact on historic heritage.

There is a need to consider and provide guidelines about heritage information accessibility and confidentiality.

Heritage Planning Current Situation Plans currently do consider historic heritage but only at a very general level.

Current planning levels at which historic heritage is/should be considered are - the WPMP, Site Development Plans, the Project Proposal Form.

The key issue in improving plans with respect to historic heritage is the lack of historic heritage knowledge.

Another issue is the low level of historic heritage analysis being undertaken in the preparation of the plans.


Need more detailed advice in plans about what to do in specific circumstances (was noted that this may not be appropriate for all plans and where this is the case the detail should be contained in other documents).

Precinct heritage management plans (when precincts are identified) - this will need background research.

Need to provide for historic heritage in the range of plans (ie, WPMP, Site Development Plans, Strategic Plans, Precinct CMPs, Site CMPs).

* Possibly a need for a Historic Heritage Management Strategy to complement other strategies (eg, Fire Management, Track Management, Water Catchment) – would be a place to put detailed level advice that is not appropriate in the WPMP (eg, the protocols, processes, and site & precinct specific requirements).

* Project Proposal Forms should continue to be used as they are useful at the operational level – although much of this will be treated differently in the new WPMP (which has moved to the LUPAA style performance based approach for proposed development/works).


Communications Current Situation Nothing really in place at present, it relies on the WPMT Manager or agency staff to

initiate when a need is perceived. Currently the model for communication in relation to the general management of

Wellington Park is the Advisory Committee – but this rarely meets formally and business is done informally; also not sure if this is the best approach for historic heritage related communications and decision making.

The Project Proposal Form is one existing communications tool but not consistently used.


Preference to find an effective alternatives to committees if possible – but agreed that this would require the planning and other policy to be established, and established processes and protocols to ensure that the necessary communication did occur.

At a general level the WPMT should act as the central communications conduit. Decisions regarding cultural heritage (or potential impacts to cultural heritage) need to be

made in consultation with agency heritage expertise – in all cases this needs to be meaningful and early).

There is a need to link and integrate the various planning, strategic and other management documents better.

An issue is the limited human resources for historic heritage management in each agency. It is important to respect agency autonomy (eg, should try and work in a way that uses

the various processes/approaches of each agency where possible).

Community Consultation Current Situation Only historic heritage related community program (other than providing for consultation

in research projects) is the Mountain Huts Network which is a community group with responsibility for managing a small number of historic huts. (The Walking Track Group also has responsibility re historic tracks but this is not an explicit role and the group mainly considers use and maintenance issues form a recreational perspective).

The GCC have held a 'Back to Merton' day for the community, and conducted a community consultative identification project in the Collinsvale area in the 1990s (Waight 1995).

The statutory requirements for community consultation in HCC planning.


* No clear vision about how this is best done – the WPMT runs a number of community groups, but none are necessarily appropriate for community involvement in historic heritage, and setting up a specialist group for this area alone also has issues (in particular they require considerable resources).

Consider expanding the scope of existing mechanisms (eg, the Tracks Group and Mountain Hut Network, Bushcare/Landcare groups) to include consideration of historic heritage matters in relation to those place types.

If such groups were encouraged to operate in this way then members will need the appropriate cultural heritage awareness training/induction – the level of involvement of groups should reflect the level of training).

The Hobart Walking Club should be involved/engaged in historic heritage management given their historical connection and current interest.

A key issue is the human and monetary resource required to run groups/committees – groups should only be set up where they have a specific task to achieve or as lower cost reference groups.

Management Structure & Approach This area was not considered due to time constraints, but it was also agreed that these matters had been included in the preceding discussion.


Policy, Guidelines, Protocols, Processes This area was not considered due to time constraints, but it was also agreed that these matters had been included to some extent in the preceding discussion.

Other Comment Desirable Future Directions & Needs

Funding is required for active conservation of heritage sites. The existence and relevance of the HCC Skyline Development Policy was noted.

Consultation Record

The list of agencies, organisations and individuals consulted is provided below. Where a response was received, this has been indicated (by shading in the first column).

LAND/ASSET MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

Agency/Organisation/Individual Method of Consultation Level of Participation Wellington Park Management Trust (Michael Easton)

Steering Committee Provided with draft report various discussions

attended Management Meeting provided comment on draft report

Glenorchy City Council (Sarah Waight & Mike Bidwell)

Steering Committee Field inspection U. Merton Provided with draft report various discussions

attended Management Meeting project meeting with Mike Bidwell

Hobart City Council (Brendan Lennard & Rob Mather)

Steering Committee Provided with draft report various discussions

attended Management Meeting provided letter outlining

responsibilities provided comment on draft report

Parks & Wildlife Service (Grant Hall & Jo Lyngcoln)

Meeting with G. Hall Discussion with J. Lyngcoln Provided with draft report

attended Management Meeting project meeting with Grant Hall

Hobart Water (Andrew Truscott)

Input via the MWSHWG attended Management Meeting (L. Vandenberg attended)

STATUTORY & OTHER AGENCIES WITH AN INTEREST

Tasmanian Heritage Office (Angie McGowan)

Steering Committee Introductory letter Provided with draft report

letter inviting access to databases and reports

Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery

Introductory letter

Forestry Tasmania

Introductory letter

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (without a land management role in Wellington Park)

Derwent Valley Council

Introductory letter

Huon Valley Council

Introductory letter

Kingborough Council

Introductory letter


COMMUNITY GROUPS

Agency/Organisation/Individual Method of Consultation Level of Participation Collinsvale – Glenlusk Precinct Group

Introductory letter (copies mailed to individuals by the GCC)

provided 1 response with place information & management comment

Collinsvale Community Association

Introductory letter

Fern Tree Community Association

Introductory letter/ Invited follow up included – advertising in Newsletter putting maps in FT shop, attending FTCA mtg (8/2), a community meeting.

Provided with draft report

provided suggestions of who to talk to for more place information

provided place information& comment on management (via the Community Meeting – only 1 community member attended)

provided 1 other individual response (see Tom & Robin Errey, below)

Glenorchy Precinct Group


Huonville Streetscape Reference Group

Introductory letter

Leslie Vale Progress Association

Introductory letter

Ridgeway Progress Association

Introductory letter

Rosella-Montrose Precinct Group


South Hobart Progress Association

Introductory letter Provided with draft report

provided 1 response with place information

Summerleas Residents Association

Introductory letter

Tumbling Waters Precinct Group


SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS

New Norfolk Historical Society

Introductory letter Provided with draft report

suggested people to talk to and reports to look at

provided place information & comment on management

Collinsvale History Group

Introductory letter

Glenorchy History Group

Introductory letter suggested contacting the GCC for information

Tasmanian Historical Research Association

Introductory letter

Cultural Heritage Practitioners Tasmania

Introductory letter

Hobart Walking Club

Introductory letter/ Invited follow up included – attending a HWC meeting, attending a HWC Mt

Wellington Historic Huts & Tracks day walk

Provided with draft report

place information obtained from 3 interested members (see Individuals list below)

Provided comment on the draft report.

Mountain Festival Committee Inc

Introductory letter (emailed)


Agency/Organisation/Individual Method of Consultation Level of Participation Tasmanian National Parks Association

Introductory letter

NRM South

Introductory letter provided comment on management.

Tasmanian Landcare Association

Introductory letter

Cascades Landcare Group

Introductory letter

Fern Tree Landcare Group

Introductory letter

Friends of Knocklofty Reserve

Introductory letter

Huon Road Bushcare Group

Introductory letter

Jubilee Bushcare Group

Introductory letter

Kangaroo Valley Bushcare Group

Introductory letter

Kingborough Landcare Advisory Group

Introductory letter

Longley Bushcare Group

Introductory letter

Mountain River Catchment Landcare Group

Introductory letter

Mt Wellington Bushcare Group

Introductory letter suggested people to talk to provided 2 responses with place

information. Neika Landcare Group

Introductory letter

New Town Rivulet Catchment Care Group Inc

Introductory letter

North West Bay River Catchment Committee

Introductory letter

Ridgeway Bushcare Group

Introductory letter suggested people to talk to

Waterworks Valley Bushcare Group

Introductory letter

INDIVIDUALS WITH SPECIAL HERITAGE PLACE KNOWLEDGE

Tom Adkins (ex HCC)

Not interviewed as has been previously interviewed in connection with the MWSS

Roy Davies (Fern Tree/HWC)

Unfortunately R. Davies passed away before the project could interview him.

project reviewed & copied R. Davies photo collection (courtesy of daughter A. O'Brien)

Martin Daley (Fern Tree)

Interview in person provided place information

Tom (& Robin) Errey (Fern Tree)

Completed questionnaire Review of draft inventory

provided place information (& views on management of these)

provided comment on draft inventory

Blane & Jill Fitzgerald (South Hobart/HWC)

Field inspection of historic huts & tracks

provided place information & management comment

project reviewed & copied photo collection


Agency/Organisation/Individual Method of Consultation Level of Participation Kevin Kiernan (Fern Tree)

Interview in person provided place information (& views on management of these)

Max Knott (ex HCC)

Interview in person provided place information project reviewed & copied

photo collection Fred Lakin (HWC)

Field inspection of historic huts & tracks

provided place information & management comment

provided comment on draft inventory

Lyn Massie (Glenorchy)

Interview (by phone) provided place information

Officer Family (Liz(Fern Tree)

Interview in person provided place information (& views on management of these)

Judy Sprent (Fern Tree)

Interview in person provided place information & management comment

Ivan Wolfe (HCC)

Interview in person provided place information & management comment

Jessie Luckman (HWC)

Review of draft inventory provided comment on draft inventory

David Leaman (walker/researcher)

Review of draft inventory provided comment on draft inventory

Note – Other people were identified as having information on the historic heritage of Wellington Park. Due mainly to the project time constraints they were not interviewed, but are recommended as being interviewed in the future – see Appendix 2.

___________________________________


ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT - Mount Wellington · Wellington Park Management Trust, was...

Documents

Transcript of ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT - Mount Wellington · Wellington Park Management Trust, was...